1932-02-22

APPOINTMENT OF SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES

Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved:: That standing order 63 of the House of Commons, relating to the appointment of select standing committees of the house be amended by adding to the select standing committees of the house for the present session a select standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, to which will be referred the accounts and the estimates of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine for the present session, for consideration and report to the house; provided, however, that nothing in this resolution shall be construed to curtail in any way the full right of discussion in committee of supply, and that the said committee consist of: Messrs. Beaubien, Bell (St. Antoine), Bothwell, Cant-ley, Chaplin, Duff, Euler, Fiset (Sir Eugene), Fraser (Cariboo), Geary, Gobeil, Gray, Han-bury, Hanson (York-Sunbury), Heaps, Kennedy (Peace River), McGibbon, MacMillan (Saskatoon), Manion, Power, Rogers and Stewart (Lethbridge).


Mr. SPEAKER:: Has there been any notice as to the appointment of the committee?


Robert James Manion: My recollection, Mr. Speaker, is that the same procedure was followed last year.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: May I ask whether the names of the members constituting the committee have been decided upon as the result of arrangement between the whips or the leaders?


Robert James Manion: I have moved exactly the same committee as was arranged by the whips and leaders last year.


Ernest Lapointe: But it is possible that changes might be found desirable.


Robert James Manion: It .can stand until tomorrow.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Ernest Lapointe: The minister is willing to allow the motion to stand.


Robert James Manion: Let it stand until to-morrow.
Motion stands.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) moved for leave to introduce a bill to amend the Criminal Code (unlawful associations).
Pierre Édouard Blondin: Shall leave be granted?


Mr. BENNETT:: No.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: All those in favour of the motion that leave be granted please say aye.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Those opposed will say nay.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In my opinion the nays have it.


Ernest Lapointe: Does the right hon. gentleman prevent a member from introducing a bill?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Call in the members.


Mr. GARDINER:: Mr. Speaker, on a
question of privilege; I do not find a copy of this bill on the file so will Your Honour explain to the house what we are to vote upon?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The bill has not been
introduced as yet so it would not appear on the file.


Robert Gardiner: I would like to know
something about what we are to vote upon.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has moved for leave to introduce the bill and the question is as to whether or not the house i3 in favour of that motion.


Robert Gardiner: We do not know what the bill is about. The hon. member who introduced it has not been asked to explain. I submit that this is an extraordinary procedure and I protest against it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The motion is by Mr. Woodsworth, seconded by Mr. Heaps for leave to introduce a bill intituled "An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Unlawful Associations)".


Robert Gardiner: I protest against this
procedure. Until we know what we are vot-

Criminal Code
ing about how can we act? How can we vote on whether or not a member shall have the privilege of introducing a bill unless we know the contents of that bill? It would be absolutely ridiculous to proceed along these lines.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Perhaps it might be
reasonable to permit the hon. member to make an explanation of this bill.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Could we not have an
explanation of this bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The opportunity to explain a bill is a right belonging to any hon. member who introduces a bill but when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) made his motion for leave to introduce this bill he did not see fit to make any explanation.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order-


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not make any
explanation.-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, 1
rise to a point of order-


Richard Bedford Bennett: -and not having made any explanation, I take it-


James Shaver Woodsworth: -my point of order is this:-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member will
have an opportunity to speak.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have the right to rise on a point of order. My point of order is that the Prime Minister has deliberately misrepresented the situation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have had no
opportunity to speak.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no point of order in that. My observation was-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -purely on a question of privilege; the hon. member did not make any explanation of his bill.


An hon. MEMBER:: He did not have a
chance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He asked for leave to
introduce and he had as good a chance as any hon. member of this house has ever had.


Robert Gardiner: No, he
had not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not wish to avail himself of that opportunity-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order; I must insist that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) should not misrepresent the situation. As Your Honour knows I had no opportunity to explain my bill. The practice is that an hon. member is asked to explain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But he is not bound to.


James Shaver Woodsworth: He is not bound
to. Only a moment elapsed and to my utter astonishment the Prime Minister took an attitude which I have never known to be taken in the eleven years I have been in this house. I do not know whether or not the Prime Minister means that I as a member of the Labour party am never to have a chance to introduce any bill in this house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member was
given an opportunity to explain but I did go rather swiftly from one proceeding to another and perhaps if the hon. member had been a little more alert he would have explained his bill. I think it would be reasonable to allow the hon. member an opportunity now to make the usual brief explanation of his bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It can be done only with the unanimous consent of the house as it is a question of precedent, but I do not object.


Ernest Lapointe: Does that mean that an hon. member cannot explain a bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He can do it at the
proper time and in the proper place provided for by the rules.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member had no opportunity of doing it; my right hon. friend said "no".


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said, "no", of course.


Ernest Lapointe: I, for one, protest against this new procedure of having to submit any bill to my right hon. friend before it is introduced.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Mussolini.


Ernest Lapointe: Mussolini is but a child.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have said that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre probably was prevented from explaining his bill because I proceeded too swiftly.


Ernest Lapointe: It was the word "no" that prevented the explanation.
Criminal Code


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If there is any fault at all, it is entirely the fault of the Speaker.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have not been able to hear what Your Honour has been saying for the last two or three minutes.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. member desires to proceed to explain his bill he will do so without further delay.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, this
bill contains an amendment to section 98 of the criminal code which concerns seditious and unlawful assemblies. It is the same bill which passed the House of Commons in the sessions of 1926, 1926-7, 1928, 1929 and 1930, but on each occasion not being passed by the second chamber. I believe one year it failed to pass by only three votes. If this bill were introduced under the practices of the British house, so often lauded by hon. members opposite, it would have been the law of this country several years ago.
Section 98 of the criminal code was placed upon the statute books in the year 1919, the immediate post-war period. The terms of the act are so broad as to permit its use for the restricting of the legitimate activities of organized labour, Again and again, as far back as 1920, the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada has protested against this section. As I said before, the terms of the section are so broad as to easily prevent organized labour taking any action whatever, and for that reason the Trades and Labour Congress and other labour bodies have protested against it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member should confine his remarks to an explanation of the bill and not attempt to discuss its merits.


James Shaver Woodsworth: As has been stated in previous debates on 'this question, the public welfare is sufficiently protected by other sections of the criminal code. It was so stated on various occasions by the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) when he introduced similar bills.
The present law prevents the use of any force for the bringing about of any change. The section does not specify physical force and various judicial utterances have made it quite clear that the section would prevent the exercise of economic force, moral suasion or anything of the kind. If it means physical force alone, it should say so. Other sections go directly contrary to the generally accepted ideas of British fair play. A man may get into trouble because he is suspected of doing

things and the police may proceed without a warrant. A man may be considered to belong to an unlawful association unless he is able to produce proof to the contrary. Most of us have been of the opinion that a man was presumed innocent until proved guilty, but according to the law as it now stands he is presumed to be guilty until he can prove, himself innocent. That is obviously against all the ideas of British justice. Moreover- certain magistrates may take action if they have "reasonable ground for suspecting"-a most unusual phrase-that either a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. This is an extraordinary situation. I do not think members opposite of the legal profession can have read this act as it now stands on the statute books; if they have they could not defend its retention. In addition, the section gives the most extraordinary powers to postal clerks and people of that kind to interfere with mail on the possibility that they may find something that may be considered to have belonged to some member of one of these organizations. Still further, the police are given power without warrant to seize suspected property and to confiscate it to the state. These powers are entirely out of harmony with British practice and we ought not to allow them to remain on the statute books any longer. I can hardly understand the Prime Minister, who has expressed such a regard for law and order and for British practice-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member is out
of order. This has nothing to do with the bill. It is in order to state the merits or demerits of the bill so that the members may know what they are called upon to vote on. I trust the hon. member will not encroach further on the rules.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have outlined
some of the provisions that we consider are quite out of keeping with British traditions and that at present are found on the statute books of this country. We ask that this particular section of the criminal code be repealed. That is the purpose of the bill. It is clear to everybody; it has been discussed again and again in the house, and I trust the house will permit the bill to be introduced so that the question may be discussed on its merits.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, this motion is not debatable. I rise merely on a question of order and privilege, to correct a statement made by the hon. gentleman. The Supreme Court of Ontario on Friday last delivered a unani-

Criminal Code
mous judgment, Sir William Mulock, Chief Justice, being spokesman for the court, in connection with charges laid under section 98. The judgment is lengthy, covering twenty-four or twenty-five pages of foolscap, but I should like to point out that the hon. gentleman is in error when he states that lawful assemblies are in any sense prohibited or restricted.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I
claim the right to debate this now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The jury, having found
that in this particular instance the direction came from Moscow and that violence and force were to be utilized, found it an unlawful assembly and the Supreme Court of Ontario unanimously decided that they would not interfere with the conviction. It is therefore for that reason-


Ernest Lapointe: This should be discussed on the second reading of the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There will be no second reading.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would urge on
you, Mr. Speaker, to extend to other members of the house the privilege you have extended to the Prime Minister. He was not speaking on a question of privilege.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Fair play has been extended to the hon. member.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Justice merely has been extended to me.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Justice. In view of the
fact that this discussion has taken place after the members have been called in, I propose to repeat the procedure on the taking of the vote.


Ernest Lapointe: I was paired with the
hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). Had	
I voted I would have voted for leave to in-	
troduce the bill so that I could read and con-	
sider it.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I was paired with the
hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr.	
Kennedy). Had I voted I would have voted	
for the motion, thereby symbolizing my sup-	
port of freedom of speech-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


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


Mr. POWER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Mc-Gibbon). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. FAFARD:: I was paired with the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Fortin). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. POULIOT:: I was paired with the hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. YOUNG:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. HEPBURN:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


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


Mr. PERRAS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BERTRAND:: I was paired with the hon. member for Northeast Toronto (Mr. Baker). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Porteous). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


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


Mr. CAHAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. ARTHURS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Girouard). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


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


Mr. GOTT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BELL (St. John-Albert):: I was paired with the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Dubois). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. MORAND:: I was paired with the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Parent). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


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

Recording oj Pairs


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


Mr. McDADE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):: I was paired with the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.



RECORDING OF PAIRS

Richard Bedford Bennett: I note, Mr. Speaker, that hon. gentlemen have been observing pairs. I understood, and I still understand, that that is not Obligatory unless an arrangement to that effect is made. My agreement with the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) was that we were paired on the following conditions: Our pairs to be in force on all matters introduced by the government or for which the government assumes responsibility, also in connection with all matters introduced by the official opposition or by any member on its behalf, and to apply also when the Speaker is in the chair as well as in committee of the whole house on such matters. My understanding is that that arrangement does not apply to pairs of this kind, but if my interpretation is not correct I ought not to have voted. I should like to discuss the matter with the right hon. gentleman and ascertain if it is not his view that our agreement does not apply to pairs of this kind, this being a vote on a motion introduced1 by a private member. Whatever rule may prevail I desire to observe. I mention that so that there may be no misunderstanding.


Charles Marcil: I was paired with the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley), and our agreement was that I should not vote in any case in his absence. I have observed that pair.


Ernest Lapointe: My pair with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) was on exactly the same basis as my right hon. friend the Prime Minister's with the leader of the opposition, but I felt differently about it. I felt that I was not free to vote, and the way the vote was given on both sides of the house justifies me in that belief.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would not change the principle.


Mr. BROWN:: If the Prime Minister had made that statement beforehand, many members apposite might not have voted at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think there are any communists here.



MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ACT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 17, to amend the Marriage and Divorce Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. BURY:: The explanation of the proposed amendments is very simple. Under the act as it now is, a man may legally marry either his deceased wife's sister or the daughter of his deceased wife's sister, but he cannot legally -marry the daughter of his deceased wife's brother. Similarly a woman may now legally marry either her deceased husband's brother -or the son of her deceased busband;s brother, but not the son of her deceased husband's sister. The bill is introduced for removing these anomalies.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DESTRUCTIVE INSECT AND PEST ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 18, to amend the Destructive Insect and Pest Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. WEIR:: Sections one, two and three of the amending bill are intended to give us authority to control the movements of agricultural products infested with any disease or insect. Section four is intended to give to interested provinces a certain amount of freedom in connection with the -control of certain pests within their boundaries when for any reason this department does not consider it advisable -or possible to attempt to control such special pests.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	Has the dominion government complete control over ordnance land and Indian lands, and of lands under the control of the dominion government at the time of the passing of the British North America Act, except such lands as have been returned to the prairie provinces?

Questions

2.	Can any one province tax, or interfere through means of taxation or otherwise with these lands?
3.	In the ease of ordnance land, where the ordnance department has laid it out in streets and lots and sold one lot to an individual, would the province or other municipality have jurisdiction over this one lot notwithstanding the fact that the streets and surrounding property still remain ordnance land, and the lot which has been sold has never been deeded or dedicated to such province or municipality and is not even registered therein?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question is not one that can properly be answered. If the hon. gentleman will look at it, 'he will see that it is a hypothetical question, and does not lend itself to a categorical answer. If the hon. gentleman desires to state the case -he has in mind, either by putting it on the order paper or dropping a note to me, I will try to see that an answer is given to him.
Question dropped.


PAYMENTS TO MR. N. D. MURRAY
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What amount of money has been paid by
the different departments of the federal government to N. D. Murray, barrister of Halifax, Nova Scotia:	(1st) remuneration, and (2nd)
expenses, as a commissioner to investigate the conduct of federal officials in the province of Nova Scotia?
2.	How many inquiries were held?
3.	How many officials were recommended by him for dismissal?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Department of Marine-
1.	Remuneration (fees)	$ 460 00
Expenses	 617 10

2.	Twelve.
3.	None. The commissioner only reports whether he finds the official guilty or not guilty of political partisanship. Six dismissals have been made as a result of investigations held by Mr. Murray.
Department of Pensions and National
Health-
1. First	$556 00
Second	 192 75
2.	4.	$748	75
3.	3.
Post Office Department-
1.	First, Remuneration	$1,220	00Second, Expenses	
1,944	652.	30.	$3,164 653.	29.

Department of National Revenue-
(Customs and Excise Division)
1.	First, Remuneration	$420 00
Second, Expenses	 376 81
3. None. The commissioner only reports on findings of facts due to his findings; seven were dismissed.


STE. ANNE DE BELLEVUE HOSPITAL
Mr. SPEAKMAN:: 1.	Who is the medical officer in charge of the t.b. wards at Ste. Anne's hospital, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec?
2.	What is his salary?
3.	What are his qualifications?
4.	When, and upon whose recommendation was he appointed?
5.	Is he a returned soldier?
6.	Were there any other candidates for the position, and if so, were any of these rejected candidates returned soldiers?
7.	In the latter event, and if the present incumbent is not a returned soldier, why was not the civil service regulation giving preference to returned soldiers observed in this instance?
8.	What are the duties of the present medical officer ?
9.	How many 'eases of active pulmonary tuberculosis are under treatment at Ste. Anne's hospital?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Dr. Melvyn McQuitty.
2.	$3,540.
3.	Graduation from a medical school of recognized standing; licence to practise medicine; six years' experience as medical officer on the staff of an institution for the treatment of tuberculosis.
4.	(a) August 17, 1931; (b) as a result of open competitive examination.
5.	No.
6.	There were twenty-nine applicants in the competition, twelve of whom were entitled to the returned soldier preference granted under the Civil Service Act.
7.	The preference provided in the Civil Service Act for returned soldiers, was observed as usual in this competition. That is, in accordance with the Act, if a returned soldier were found to possess the minimum qualifications required for the position, he should take precedence over all others. When the Advisory Examining Board first dealt with the applications it was found that only two candidates appeared to possess the necessary qualifications for the position. One of these was a returned soldier. The other was not entitled to the returned soldier preference. Further

inquiries were made in connection with the returned soldier since his application lacked certain necessary details. Upon receipt from him of this further information, it was found that he would not be a suitable appointee for the position. Consequently, as no returned soldier applicant was found to be duly qualified, the appointment was made of a duly qualified civilian.
8.	The examination, diagnosis and treatment of all diseases of the chest or any other diseases or disabling conditions of a suspected tubercular nature; general supervision of the wards and patients assigned to his care, completing the necessary reports required by the Department of Pensions and National Health and the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada.
9.	32.
soldiers' pensions


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	How many claims for pensions have been dealt with by the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada since August 3, 1931, the date on which the latest amendments to the Pension Act became effective: (a)disability, (b) dependent ?
2.	How many of each of these claims have been admitted and how many rejected?
3.	How many pensioners and claimants for pension have been examined by the medical examiners of the pension commission during the same period?
4.	How many cases are now ready and awaiting decision by the pension commission?
Mr. MacLAREN;
1.	(a) Disability, 8,665;	(b) Dependent,
2,005.
2. (a) Disability:
Admitted	 3,936
Rejected	 4,729
8,665
(b)	Dependent:
Admitted	 1,100
Rejected	 905
2,005
In addition to the above, the commissioners, during this period, have considered and have ruled upon 1,234 miscellaneous cases in regard to which decisions were necessary in respect of additional pension for dependents of pensioners, change in the monthly rate to dependents of deceased soldiers, other than widows, change of administration, etc., etc.
3.	Approximately, 12,850.
4.	Approximately, 4,200.
Questions


REVENUE STAMP RECEIPTS
Mr. VENIOT:: What revenue was received from the sale of revenue stamps by the Department of National Revenue, from June 1, 1931, to January 31, 1932?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: 


$3,683,162.22. BLACKFOOT INDIAN AGENCY-COAL
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	Is the coal supply for the Blackfoot Indian agency let by tender?
2.	If not, from whom and on what terms is the coal supplied?
3.	If by tender, who was the successful tenderer 1930-31 and 1931-32, and what was the price per ton?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	In 1930-31 Wm. McConnell, Gleichen: $7.50 f.o.b. agency; $8.50 f.o.b. farm 3 (1 mile haul); $9.50 f.o.b. farm B (5 mile haul).
In 1931-32 Wm. McConnell, Gleichen: $7.65 f.o.b. agency; $7.65 f.o.b. farm 2 (Cluny); $8.65 f.o.b. farm 3 (1 mile haul); $9.25 f.o.b. farm A (4 mile haul); $9.65 f.o.b. farm B (5 mile haul).


BUTTER IMPORTS
Mr. PICKEL:: How much butter from all sources was brought into Canada between January 1, 1931, and January 1, 1932, indicating the sources of such importations?


Mr. STEVENS:: During the calendar imports of butter were:	year 1931	Canada'sImports from	Pounds	$United Kingdom	. 181,594	45,326Australia	. 2,264,696	695,479Fiji	. 9,408	3,052Newfoundland	.. 300	80New Zealand	. 344,320	81,175Syria	.. 160	32United States	. 20,839	7,387T otal	. 2,821,317	832,531British empire	. 2,800,318	825,112Foreign countries	. 20,999	7,419


BURNABY, B.C., RELIEF WORK
Mr. REID:: Has the Minister of Labour or any official of the dominion government received any letter, communication, telegram, or other document from the Minister of Public Works in British
Questions

Columbia or any other official, regarding a request for a further grant for relief work in the municipality of Burnaby, British Columbia?


Mr. GORDON:: Yes, copies of which will be included in the return to the 5th and 6th notices of motion by Mr. Reid on page ii of votes and proceedings No. 1, February 4, 1932.


ST. PAUL RURAL MAIL SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ST-PERE:
1.	Has the Postmaster General received a request to authorize rural mail service in the parish of St. Paul, county of Montmagny?
2.	If so, were tenders requested for said mail service on this rural route?
3.	Was a contract given, and to whom was said contract assigned?
4.	Who put in the lowest tender?
5.	Is a mail service in operation on said rural route?
6.	If said rural service is not in operation, what is the reason for the delay?
Mr. DURANLEAU (for Mr. Sauve):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes. Joseph Cote.
4.	Joseph Cote.
5.	No.
6.	The number of boxes required by department has not yet been purchased.


* FARM LOAN BOARD APPLICATIONS
Mr. BARIBEAU:: 1.	How many farmers in the county of Champlain have applied to the farm loan board for a loan, between July 28, 1930, and February 1, 1932, in pursuance of the Canadian Farm Loan Act, 1927, c. 43?
2.	How many requests were granted and for what amounts ?
3.	How many requests were refused and for what amounts ?
4.	Has the dominion government any inspectors in connection with the farm loan board in the province of Quebec?
5.	If so, how many?
6.	What are their names and addresses?


Mr. RHODES:: According to the practice which has been W'ell established in this house and has not been challenged, this question is not one which can properly be submitted to the government. In that connection I refer the hon. member to a reply respecting a similar question which I made to the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) as it appears on page 283 of Hansard. Under the circumstances I submit the question should be dropped.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Question dropped.


PENSIONS TRIBUNALS, APPLICATIONS
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	How many pension applications were heard by the pension tribunals from their inception until February 15, 1932?
2.	Of this number how many decisions were in favour of the applicant?
3.	How many decisions were adverse to the applicant ?
4.	How many decisions were appealed to the appeal court?
5.	How many decisions have been rendered by the appeal court?
6.	Of the decisions rendered by the appeal court, how- many were in favour of the pension applicant ?
7.	How many w-ere adverse to the pension applicant ?
8.	How many applications are now pending before the pension tribunals?
9.	How many before the appeal court?


Mr. MacLAREN:: Figures are to January 31, 1932.
1.	4,545, not including cases in which decision is in transit or deferred.
2.	2,129.
3.	2,416.
4.	By pension applicants, 1,172, by commission counsel, 1,550, total 2,722.
5.	* 1,461.
6.	* On appeals by pension applicants, 26, by commission counsel 239, total 265.
7.	* On appeals by pension applicants, 703, by commission counsel 343, total 1,046
8.	2,436.
9.	1,231.
* Note re Numbers 5, 6 and 7.-Forty-one cases were referred back to the Board of Pension Commissioners and 109 to the pension tribunal for rehearing.


SECURITIES RETURNED TO ENEMY SUBJECTS
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What was the amount of securities returned to German and other enemy subjects after the great war?
2.	What was their nature, and when were they returned?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	$374,035.86.
2.	Registered bonds, bearer bonds, debenture stock, preference shares and common shares, returned as follows:-
(a) To Austria-on March 13,
1930....		$ 16,793 75
(fo) To Austria-on January
30, 1931	 60 00
(c)	To Germany-on September 25, 1930	 357,182 11

Questions


* CIVIL SERVICE-REDUCTION IN SALARIES
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	How many of the following are included in the salary cut of 10 per cent: judges, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, pension commissioners, lieutenant-governors, Board of Grain Commissioners, and the permanent force?
2.	If any are exempt from the 10 per cent cut, what is the reason for the exception in each case?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think this question
should be dropped, because it will be dealt with by legislation which will be selfexplanatory. There is now a resolution on the order paper dealing with the subject matter of this question.


Mr. SPENCER:: When will such legislation be brought down?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is on the order paper.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Question dropped.


BELLA COOLA CENSUS ENUMERATOR
Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	What remuneration did Edward Albert
Wheeler receive for his work as enumerator, covering the district known as "the watershed of north Bentinek arm and Bella Coola river east to the juncture of the Bella Coola and Kahylskt rivers"?	_ _
2.	What period of time was the said Edward Albert Wheeler engaged in enumeration work in the said district?
3.	What was the total number of persons enumerated by the said Edward Albert Wheeler in the said district?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	S172.50.
2.	From June 1 to June 29, 1931, inclusive.
3.	658.


SHELBURNE COUNTY INDIAN DOCTOR
Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Who occupied the office of Indian doctor for eastern part of Shelburne county on December 1. 1931, and where did he reside?
2.	Who occupies it now and where does he reside ?
3.	When was the change made and for what reason ?
4.	Was the former incumbent a returned soldier, if so, what period of overseas service had he ?
5.	Is the present incumbent a returned
soldier?	,
6.	On whose recommendations did the Department of Indian Affairs make the change?
7.	Is the present incumbent on salary, if so, how much, and if paid on a fee basis what is the scale?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Dr. L. P. Churchill, of Shelburne, N.S.
2.	Dr. C. A. Herbin, of Lockeport, N.S.
3.	January 20, 1932.
4 and 5. No information in the department.
6.	On instructions issued by the superintendent general.
7.	The present incumbent is employed on the "call system" and is paid for services rendered on the basis of the department's schedule of fees quoted in part as follows: Visits-within 3 miles, $3 per call; outside 3 miles, $1 per mile one way, to cover transportation, professional attendance and supply of ordinary remedies to all patients attended on trip; office consultations, $2 to include supply of ordinary remedies; surgical operations, as detailed in the schedule, etc.


MR. DENTON, DIGBY, N.S.
Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	In connection with inspection of wharves and other construction work by the present government, what position does Mr. Denton of Digby hold?
2.	On whose recommendation was he appointed and what is the authority for his appointment?
3.	What is his duty and his salary?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Supervising foreman for western Nova Scotia in connection with works carried out by the department and authorized under the Unemployment Relief and Farm Act, 1931.
2.	(a) District engineer; (b) Departmental.
3.	(a) Answered by No. 1; (b) S7 a day.


REPORTED BANK MERGER
Mr. FACTOR:: 1.	Has the Minister of Finance received an application from one of our banks for permission or consent to absorb or merge with another bank, or have any representations been made to him. or have any negotiations taken place respecting the above matter?
2.	If so, what disposition has been made of the matter by the government?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


PENSIONS FOR THE BLIND
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Has the government received any representations from any provincial government in regard to pensions for the blind?
2.	If so, from what government?
3.	What is the nature of the representations?
4.	What action is proposed to be taken?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Government of the province of Manitoba.
3.	In favour of the establishment of a Dominion-wide system of pensions for needy blind persons.
4.	The intention of the government will be disclosed if and when action is taken.
Questions


RICHMOND-WOLFE VETERINARY SURGEONS
Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	What are the names of the veterinary surgeons employed by the Department of Agriculture, in the county of Richmond-Wolfe, Quebec?
2.	Are they bilingual?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	Dr. C. R. Boast.
2.	Dr. Boast is reported as having a good working knowledge of French.


MR. GARFIELD MCKINNON
Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	Did the Saskatoon district superintendent of postal service on July 28, 1922, send out a circular stating that Garfield McKinnon was to have a bill introduced in April, 1920, in order to improve the position of mail contractors?
2.	Did said contractors pay any money to McKinnon?
3.	If so, what amounts were contributed and what benefits did they derive?
4.	Did the Quebec district superintendent of postal service send out a circular on July 19, 1927, warning the said contractors against the promises by McKinnon?
5.	Does the said McKinnon still seek contributions from said contractors?
6.	Has the government taken the necessary measures to prevent McKinnon carrying on such practices?


Mr. DURANLEAU (for Mr. Sauve):: 1. No record.
2 and 3. No official record. No benefits derived by contractors from activities of Mr. McKinnon.
4.	Yes.
5.	Department understands Mr. McKinnon solicits contributions.
(?. Contractors have been properly advised.


SUPT. G. L. JENNINGS, R.C.M.P.
Mr. VALLANCE:: 1.	Has superintendent G. L. Jennings, R.C.M.P., been promoted to be assistant commissioner?
2.	If not, what is his position at present?
3.	Is this G. L. Jennings the same officer who some years ago was in command at Edmonton, Alberta?
4.	Was he suspended from the force for gross breach of confidence as a police officer?
5.	Who was commissioner at that time?
6.	Was he father-in-law of the said superintendent Jenni ngs ?
7.	Did the investigation into the conduct of superintendent Jennings reveal the fact that this officer handed over the police file to the man alleged to have stolen $10,000 from the post office?
8.	Is he a fit and proper person to be in charge of the criminal investigation department of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to question No. 33 may I say that the form of at least

part of the question is such that I think it is not in the public interest that any effort be made to answer it. I think the hon. member will agree that section 8 of the question:
8.	Is he a fit and proper person to be in charge of the criminal investigation department of , the Royal Canadian Mounted Police ?
obviously should not be placed upon the order paper to be answered by whoever is in charge of that particular branch of the public service. If the officer referred to was placed in his position by a government, such government must assume the responsibility for his appointment which implied their belief in his fitness. In my view the general form of the question, and undoubtedly the last part of it, is most objectionable. The remaining part of the question might be worded as a matter of taste; if an hon. member desired to ask a question in that form, very well; but the second part certainly should not be answered.


John Vallance: Apparently the Prime
Minister is prepared to answer the first seven sections of the question; I think section 4 will give the information I have asked for in section 8.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The form in which the
question is put is objectionable, and I do not care to pursue it. Section 4 of the question is framed in terms which this house has frequently said should not be used. It is as follows:
Was he suspended from the force for gross breach of confidence as a police officer?
A question such as this:
Was he suspended from the force, and if so for what reasons? ....
would have been fair. But to make an allegation in language couched as a question is wholly objectionable.


John Vallance: I am quite agreeable
to my right hon. friend's observations so far as they apply to section 8 of the question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am talking about section 4.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Do I understand the
whole question is dropped?


John Vallance: No. The Prime Minister was quite prepared to answer the first seven sections.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not the first seven.


John Vallance: My right hon. friend
said he was in a position to answer the first seven sections.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not in the form in
which they are, and they will not be answered.


John Vallance: I will accept it as
amended by the Prime Minister.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member may
redraft the question.


John Vallance: No, it is accepted as
amended by the Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not amend it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Does the Prime Minister take objection to it?


John Vallance: All right, we will revise it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Dropped.


John Vallance: No, let it stand and I
will revise it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I understand it, I
have taken objection to the form of question No. 33. The hon. member has suggested that I will amend it, which I will not do for reasons which I think must be apparent to him. I suggest Your Honour's ruling should be that the question is dropped.


John Vallance: Rather than create any disturbance, I will say "dropped."
farm loan board applications


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	How many farmers in the counties of Charlevoix-Saguenay have applied to the farm loan hoard for a loan, between July 28, 1930, and February 1, 1932, in pursuance of the Canadian Farm Loan Act, 1927, c. 43?
2.	How many requests were granted and for what amounts ?
3.	How many requests were refused and for what amounts?
4.	Has the dominion government any inspectors in connection with the farm loan board in the province of Quebec?
5.	If so, how many?
6.	What are their names and addresses?
7.	When were they appointed?
8.	By whom were they recommended?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The observations I made concerning question No. 17 apply also to this one. I am quite sure the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) will not object if the question is dropped.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Dropped.


&quot;UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF EXPENDITURES, CHARLEVOIX-SAGUENAY
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What federal public works in the counties of Charlevoix-Saguenay were constructed or undertaken by the government to be paid out of
Questions
the money voted last session under the moneys authorized to be expended under the unemployment relief act of last session?
2.	What were the amounts authorized in respect of each work?
3.	What are the names of the foremen employed in respect of each work?
4.	On whose recommendations was the selection made of the men who received employment in connection with each of these respective works?
5.	What was the approximate expenditure actually incurred in respect of each of the said works?
G. Are all said works finished now?
7.	On whose recommendation did the government decide the said works?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	(a) Beaupre, repairs and improvements to wharf; (b) Harrington, blasting trench for water pipe.
2.	(a) $6,800; (b) $1,000.
3.	(a) Charles Simard; (fo) A. G. Learmont.
4.	(a) District engineer and foreman; (b) district engineer and foreman.
5.	(a) $7,056.12; (b) $994.85.
6.	(a) Yes; Ob) yes.
7.	(a) District engineer; (b) district engineer.


ESCUMINAC RAILWAY STATION MAIL SERVICE
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has a contract been awarded for the new mail service between Escuminac railway station and Escuminac and Fleurant?
2.	Was Sam Pike, the present contractor, one of the tenderers, what was the amount of his tender, was it the lowest tender received by the Post Office Department, and to whom was the contract awarded?


Mr. DURANLEAU (for Mr. Sauve):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Yes, at $419 per annum; (fo) No. Contract was awarded to Wallace Dickie at $400 per annum.


GRADING OF PIGS
Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	How many government employees grade pigs on foot in Canada?
2.	How many government employees grade pigs on rail in Canada?
3.	What amount is paid to the government graders of pigs?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	Thirty-seven.
2.	None.
3.	$86,640 per annum,.


ROCK DRILLS CUSTOMS ENTRIES
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Was the minister or any official of the department informed during the year 1931 of the improper entry at customs in British Columbia of rock drills?
Questions as Orders for Returns

2.	Was an investigation made in regard to such importations of rock drills, and, if investigation was made, was it found that such rock drills were improperly entered?
3.	Did any importer, by declaring the drills to be used for mining purposes only, obtain a lower rate of duty than would be applied if the said rock drills were declared to be used for construction and other purposes?
4.	What were the names of individuals or firms which were found to have wrongly declared rock drills?
5.	Have all the individuals or firms, found to have wrongfully declared rock drills, made settlement with the department by payment of duties short paid, and penalties?
6.	Has a decision been reached in regard to the case of the Sullivan Machinery Company, and have all short payments and penalties been paid?
7.	If the Sullivan Machinery Company has not made payment, what is the status of this case at the present time?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: 1,	2 and 3. Yes.
4.	Sullivan Machinery Co., Gardner Denver Co., Canadian Ingersoll Rand Co. Ltd., Vancouver Machinery Depot Co. Ltd., Canadian Pneumatic Tool Co., Holman Bros. Ltd.
5.	All with the exception of the Sullivan Machinery Co.
6.	Decision rendered but payment not yet made.
7.	Demand for payment has been made.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. DUFF:: 1.	How much money was expended under the supervision of the Public Works department and its officials, out of the money voted by parliament for unemployment purposes, and the Act passed in 1931 dealing with Unemployment Relief?
2.	Were tenders called for the expenditure of said moneys when estimates for the work exceeded $5,000?
3.	If tenders were not called in all cases, what were the names of the works and the amounts expended?


REPARATIONS RECEIVED FROM GERMANY
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	What has been the total amount of reparations received from Germany by Canada under part 8 of the treaty of Peace signed at Versadles, June 28, 1919 (articles 231 and
2.	What has been the interest accumulated on said amount up to the present time?
3.	Who have been the commissioners appointed by the Canadian government to effect disposition of said moneys?
4.	Were said moneys paid into consolidated revenue and, if so, when?
5.	How much moneys have been paid out to claimants under the following headings,-
(Mr. Maclnnis.]
(1)	Damage to injured persons and to surviving dependents by personal injury to or death of civilians caused by acts of war, including bombardments or other attacks on land, on sea, or from the air, and all the direct consequences thereof, and of all operations of war by the two groups of belligerents wherever arising.
(2)	Damage caused by Germany or her allies to civilian victims of acts of cruelty, violence or maltreatment (including injuries to life or health as a consequence of imprisonment, deportation, internment or evacuation, or exposure at sea or of being forced to labour), wherever arising, and to the surviving dependents of such victims.
(3)	Damage caused by Germany or her allies in their own territory or in occupied or invaded territory to civilian victims of all acts injurious to health or capacity to work, or to honour, as well as to the surviving dependents of such victims.
(4)	Damage caused by any kind of maltreatment of prisoners of war.
(5)	As damage caused to the peoples of the allied and associated powers, all pensions and compensation in the nature of pensions to naval and military victims of war (including members of the air force), whether multilated, wounded, sick or invalided, and to the dependents of such victims, the amount due to the allied and associated governments being calculated for each of them as being the capitalized cost of such pensions and compensation at the date of the coming into force of the present treaty on the basis of the scales in force in France at such date.
(6)	The cost of assistance by the governments of the allied and associated powers to prisoners of war and to their families and dependents.
(7)	Allowances by the governments of the allied and associated powers to the families and dependents of mobilized persons or persons serving with the forces, the amount due to them for each calendar year in which hostilities occurred being calculated for each government on the basis of the average scale for such payments in force in France during that year.
(8)	Damage caused to civilians by being forced by Germany or her allies to labour without just remuneration.
(9)	Damage in respect of all property wherever situated belonging to any of the allied or associated states or their nationals, with the exception of naval and military works or materials, which has been carried off. seized, injured or destroyed by the acts of Germany or her allies on land, on sea or from the air, or damage directly in consequence of hostilities or of any operations of war.
(10)	Damage in the form of levies, fines and other similar exactions imposed by Germany or her allies upon the civilian population.
6.	How much has been paid out by the various commissioners under the various headings listed in (5)?
7.	How much money of the amount received, including interest, is still in consolidated revenue?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this question should stand as an order for return. I might say in the meantime however that the Department of the Secretary of State has not any information with regard to other allied and associated powers. This question

Motions for Papers
should be restricted to Canada as one of the allied and associated powers under the treaty of Versailles. With that restriction we will do our best to answer it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: This question stands as an order for return.


LOWER SANDY POINT BREAKWATER
Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	How much money was expended on the repairs to the breakwater at Lower Sandy Point, Nova Scotia, from April 1, 1931, to December 31, 1931?
2.	What if any of said amount was from unemployment relief funds?
3.	Who was the foreman of said -work?
4.	How many hours was he. employed and at what rate per hour?
5.	How much was paid said foreman for hire of his automobile, in connection with said work?
6.	How much was paid to each of the men employed on such work, and at w'hat rate per hour?
7.	Who supplied the materials, viz., timber,
logs, and iron for the said work, and what prices delivered on the work?	_
8.	Were tenders asked for delivery of said materials, and if so who were the unsuccessful tenderers and what prices did they offer?
9.	Has the department any information to the effect that said foreman was a merchant carrying on his business during the period in which he held the position of foreman?


SHELBURNE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURES
Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	How much money has been expended on each of the following public works in Shelburne county, from April 1, 1931, to December 31, 1931, namely: repairs at Shelburne public *wharf, Lockeport public wharf, Lockeport harbour protection, breakwater at East Jordan, Gunning Cove public wharf, Black Point public wharf, West Baccaro breakwater, Falls Point breakwater, C. Negro Island breakwater?
2.	Who were the persons employed on each of such works and how many hours was each employed and at what rate per hour?
3.	From whom were the timber, logs, and iron obtained for each of said works, and what prices were paid for such materials delivered on the work: (a) for sawn timber and plank M ft. B.M.; (b) for logs by lineal foot or by scale for b.m.; (c) for iron, in bars or ready for use on the work?
4.	What material was principally used for and in such repair work, in each case, whether, hemlock, spruce, fir, pine or hardwood?
5.	Was the department charged sales tax in addition to or included in the price landed for such materials?
6.	Were tenders asked for supplying said materials, if so, from whom, and if public?
7.	If so, how and where were the advertisements published asking for such tenders?
8.	Who were the unsuccessful tenderers, and
what were the prices offered by them?	_
9.	In cases where logs were supplied and paid for either by lineal feet measurement, or by scale for b.m. contents, who did the measuring or scaling?
10.	In case of works uncompleted, when does the Department of Public Works expect said work to be completed?


CHARLEVOIX-SAGUENAY MAIL CONTRACTS
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	How many tenders were called for, for mail contracts in the counties of Charlevoix-Saguenay since January 1, 1931, to February 1, 1932?
2.	What are the names of said mail routes?
3. What are the names and addresses of tenderers in each case and their sureties?
4.	Who was the successful tenderer in each case?
5.	Was the contract always awarded to the lowest tenderer?
G. What are the names and addresses of people who supported the tenderers in each case, if any?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in asking that this question stand as an order for return may I say that the information sought will be very lengthy.


GARIBALDI PARK, B.C.
Mr. MUNN:: 1.	Was the area known as Garibaldi park, British Columbia, offered to the Dominiipn government by the government of the province of British Columbia, if so, on -what terms?
2.	Was any action taken in regard to this area?
3.	If so, what action has been taken?
4.	Was there any representation made by private or business concerns individually or through the British Columbia provincial government to the Dominion government in regard to additional areas that might be required in the shape of timber lands or logged off lands for Garibaldi park?
5.	Was any examination of logged off lands or timber lands made by the Dominion government in the vicinity of Garibaldi park, British Columbia, if so, what action, if any, has been taken and if report was made by government official or examiner, would same be available?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. RALSTON:: For a copy of the correspondence, documents, accounts and vouchers respecting the expenditure authorized in the province of Nova Scotia for federal public works to be paid for under the authority of the Unemployment, Relief Act of last session, showing: (a) the amount authorized; (b) the amount expended.
For a copy of the correspondence, documents, accounts and vouchers respecting the expenditure for contribution to works being constructed or contributed to by the provincial or municipal authorities in the province of Nova Scotia under the authority of the Unemployment Relief Act of last session, showing: (a) the amount authorized; (b) the amount expended.
For a copy of the correspondence, documents, accounts and vouchers respecting the expenditure for direct relief in the province of Nova

Motions jor Papers
Scotia under the authority of the Unemployment Relief Act of last session, showing: (a) the amount authorized; (b) the amount expended.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker,
when the second motion came up at a previous sitting it was agreed that it should stand pending the bringing down of the regular return under the act. I would ask therefore that the motion stand in the meantime.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That applies to one, two and three.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The same thing. Mr. SPEAKER: One, two and three stand.



SOPHIE LIGHT-FATAL SHOOTING

Mr. McPHEE:: For a copy of all correspondence, papers and documents in the possession of the government relating to the fatal shooting of Mrs. Sophie Light of Des Moines, Iowa. U.S.A., by Constable Pirt, R.C.M.P., of Yorkton, Saskatchewan. at a picnic held a few miles from Roblin, Manitoba, on Labour day, Monday, September 1, 1930; and also of correspondence between the Attorney General of the province of Saskatchewan and the Minister of Justice of Canada relative to the payment of $500 to the husband of the said Sophie Light.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Subject, Mr. Speaker, to the limitations that would be imposed if it were a case of private litigation, the order will, I assume, be adopted by the house. But confidential communications touching the conduct of negotiations and matters of that kind which would be privileged communications on an order for discovery, I take it the hon. gentleman would not expect to have produced.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Carried, subject to the
reservation as stated.



MARIA, QUE., WHARF

Charles Marcil: For a copy of paylists and accounts for materials used in the repairs to the wharf at Maria, Quebec; and also same information for protection works in that municipality.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I
desire to know from the hon. gentleman whether he wishes the information with respect to the current fiscal year or for a longer period.


Charles Marcil: For the present year only. Mr. STEWART (Leeds): No objection.



B0NAVENTTJRE, QUE., WHARF

Charles Marcil: For a copy of paylists and accounts for materials supplied for repairing the wharf at 
Bonaventure, Quebec; and also a copy of paylists and accounts for materials for repairs of protection works in that municipality.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: For the same
period?


Charles Marcil: Yes.



ST. NICHOLAS, QUE., POST OFFICE

Charles Marcil: For a copy of all documents and correspondence exchanged between the citizens of row (rang) St. Nicholas, in the parish of St. Ferreol, county of Montmorency, and the Postmaster General, or any other official of his department, at Ottawa or Quebec, in connection with the opening of a post office in said parish.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to Number 14, Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps my hon. friend from Bonaventure who moves the resolution for the member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain), will agree that it would be better to impose some limitation as to time, for it might involve a great deal of difficulty to go back a good many years. I suggest that since 1930 would probably cover all that is desired, if that is acceptable to the hon. gentleman.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In the absence of the
hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay, this motion and the next three will stand.



MANITOBA FARMERS-SUPPLY OF FEED AND SEED

['I was paired with the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). Had I voted I would have voted for the resolution. May I add that in view of the pairing which took place this afternoon an adjustment was made of the pair of the right hon. leader of the opposition, so that the opposition was not deprived of that vote.\nOn motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.58 p.m.\nTuesday, February 23, 1932']
John Livingstone Brown: For a copy of all correspondence between Premier Bracken of Manitoba or any of the officials of the Manitoba government and the Prime Minister or any of the officials of the dominion government, with reference to the supplying of feed and seed to the farmers of Manitoba.
Might I amend my motion, Mr. Speaker, by inserting after the words "Prime Minister" in the third line the words "Minister of Agriculture"?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The most important one is the Minister of Finance.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Amended with the consent of the house.



Joseph-Fernand Fafard: For a copy of all reports, letters, telegrams and other documents in connection with the appointment by the Civil Service Commission of Elzear Gagnon, an ex-soldier with a record of overseas active service, on September 1, 1931, to the position of postmaster at Ste. Louise, county of L'lslet, Quebec, and the said Gagnon's subsequent rejection by the Postmaster General.

Unopposed Motions lor Papers


Richard Bedford Bennett: With the limitation that necessarily is imposed upon this motion by reason of the fact that the government, as such, has not control over documents or papers in the hands of the Civil Service Commission dealing with the subject matter, I assume it will be adopted iby the house. It will be within the memory of the house that on more than one occasion discussion has taken place as to bow far an effort should be made to bring down from the Civil Service Commission documents, somewhat 'confidential in their nature, upon which they arrive at their conclusions. But any documents the government have will of course be promptly supplied.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. DONNELLY:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents in connection with the dismissal of postmaster C. E. Sproule, at Rock-glen, Saskatchewan; also a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents relating to an investigation into charges made against postmaster C. E. Sproule, at Rockglen, Saskatchewan, his dismissal and the temporary appointment of Mr. Lawrence in his stead.


MITCHELLTON, SASK., POSTMASTERSHIP
James J. Donnelly: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents passing between the Postmaster General or any of his officials and any person or persons in the province of Saskatchewan, since September, 1931, with reference to the appointment of a postmaster for the post office at Mitchellton, Saskatchewan.


GRANDE RIVIERE, QUE., POSTMASTER, DISMISSAL
Mr. BRASSET:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, letters, affidavits and other documents, including all evidence given at the inquiry held in connection -with the dismissal of Mr. Hygin Ayotte, as postmaster at Grande Riviere, Gaspe county.


FREIGHT RATES-CORRESPONDENCE
Thomas Reid: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, communications and other documents exchanged between the provincial government of British Columbia or any official of that government, and the dominion government or any official of the dominion government, regarding the matter of freight rates since July 31, 1930.


ST. FABIEN DE PANET, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. CHEVRIER:: For a copy of all correspondence, also report of the commissioner, made after the inquiry was held, in connection with the postmaster, J. C. Tanguay, St. Fabien de Panet, county of Mont-magny.


LAC FRONTIERE, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. DENIS:: For a copy of all correspondence, also the report of the commissioner, made after the inquiry was held, in connection with the postmaster, Eugene Gregoire, Lake Frontiere, county of Montmagny.


ST. PIERRE DE LA RIVIERE DU SUD, QUE., POSTMISTRESS, DISMISSAL
Fizalam-William Perras: For a copy of all correspondence, also the report of the commissioner, made after the inquiry was held, in connection with the dismissal of Miss Gagne, postmistress at St. Pierre de la Riviere du Sud, county of Montmagny.


CAMP HILL HOSPITAL STAFF
James Layton Ralston: For a return showing the names, positions, and salaries of the staff of Camp Hill hospital, Halifax, as of June 30, 1930, and as of January 31, 1932.


CAP ST. IGNACE, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Joseph-Fernand Fafard: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents in connection with the creation of a vacancy in the postmastership at Cap St. Ignace, county of Montmagny, Quebec, and the appointment, temporary or otherwise, of a new postmaster, together with a copy of correspondence, applications, recommendations and other communications received from persons desirous of obtaining the new appointment, or others on their behalf.


CHARLEMAGNE, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Charles Marcil: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, letters, recommendations, sworn statements, and other documents, including the evidence taken at the inquiry in connection with the dismissal of the postmaster at Charlemagne and the appointment of his successor.


ST. JACQUES, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Charles Marcil: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, letters, recommendations and other documents, including evidence taken at the inquiry in connection with the appointment of a new postmaster at St. Jacques, to replace Mr. Joseph Levesque, who was dismissed.


ST. CALIXTE-NORTH, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Charles Marcil: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, letters, recommendations, sworn statements, and other documents, including the evidence taken at the inquiry in connection with the dismissal of the postmaster at St. Calixte-North, and the appointment of his successor.
Canadian Wool Industry


ST. HENRI DE MASCOUCHE, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Charles Marcil: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, letters, sworn statements and other documents, including evidence taken at the inquiry in connection with the dismissal of the postmaster at St. Henri de Mascouche, and the appointment of his successor.


LACHENAIE, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Charles Marcil: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, letters, recommendations, sworn statements and other documents, including the evidence taken at the inquiry in connection with the dismissal of the postmaster at Lachenaie, and the appointment of his successor.


ST. SULPICE, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Charles Marcil: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, letters, recommendations, sworn statements and other documents, including the evidence taken at the inquiry in connection with the dismissal of the postmaster at St. Sulpice, and the appointment of his successor.


CANADIAN WOOL INDUSTRY
Mr. J. B. SWANSTON (Maple Creek) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that the government of the Dominion of Canada place a duty on raw wool that would reasonably protect the Canadian wool growers.
He said:	In submitting this resolution to
the house for discussion I wish to make a few observations with reference to the situation as it exists in the province of Saskatchewan and, I may add, throughout the whole of Canada. For many years the wool growers of Canada have devoted considerable effort to the improvement of wool and in doing so they have developed an excellent type of wool-producing sheep; but when there is a marked decline in the price of wool the wool growers naturally turn their attention to the medium wool-mutton breeds, with the result that the best wool-producing sheep are somewhat neglected. I hope the time will never come when the Canadian sheep grower will be compelled to ignore the development of the best wool-growing sheep.
Wool is one of the principal articles of commerce and next to cotton is the product most extensively used in the manufacture of cloth, felt and fabric. The sheep is valuable both for its wool and for its meat, and is one of the most productive animals on the farm. A sheep can live on the prairies or on 
hills where it is impossible for horses or cattle to exist, and perhaps there is not a country in the world with climatic conditions and pastures more suitable to sheep than in a portion of southwestern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta. Still, with these advantages, the wool-growing industry has been neglected because we have failed to place a duty on raw wool as asked for by the wool growers of western Canada. The dusty that was formerly levied on wool was taken off by the late government in section 549 of the tariff, which was enacted on February 17, 1928, the commodity being thus placed on the free list. Some assistance was given the wool growers at the last session of parliament by increasing the duty on mutton, but raw -wool was still left unprotected. Wool in the grease, scoured wool, noils and tops are admitted duty free, and the Canadian grower has therefore to compete in Canada with the wool growers of other countries, and with countries where wool can be produced much cheaper than in Canada.
Pressure of imported wool has prevented the development of the earlier processing industry in Canada in regard to carding, scouring and spinning, thus forcing the Canadian grower out of his own home market. The woollen trade-that is, with respect to the various processes from the yarn to the finished article-has received reasonable protection but no protection has been accorded with respect to the processes from the raw wool to the yarn, and as a result the manufacturing industries have purchased too much of their requirements from other countries. The Canadian grower in consequence is obliged to find a market in other countries. This seems to me to be very unfair to the Canadian wool grower as he has to carry the extra cost of freight, handling and selling charges in the foreign markets, while at the same time having to accept practically the same net returns as for wool sold in Canada.
When we produce only about one-third of the amount of wool needed by the manufacturers in this country, it would seem only reasonable that the home market should absorb every pound of Canadian wool. While the entire consumption of wool in Canada is in the neighbourhood of eighty million pounds, and the total production approximates twenty million pounds, it may be true that for a time the Canadian wool grower will not be able to fill all the requirements of the Canadian market; but if given adequate protection to secure the home market, and with better prices, the industry will be stimulated. There would be a great increase in the number of sheep and in a very short time

Canadian Wool Industry
the Canadian wool grower would be producing enough of the raw wool to supply the entire need of this dominion.
Owing to the fact that no attempt has been made to develop the industry of top making, the larger number of Canadian manufacturers start their operations from the tops, which are purchased by them wherever they can be found. There is nothing in the quality of Canadian wool to prohibit its use in Canada, nor is there any lack of quality which makes it necessary to import outside wool. It would appear that some of the troubles of the Canadian wool growers arise from the fact that no great effort has been made in Canada, as has been made in the United States, to develop the processes of wool from the fleece stage up to the tops. As a result, Canadian wool has to be exported in the raw state in order to find a market where the processing is carried out. Last year, western wool brought from 4 to 6 cents per pound while across the border, in the state of Montana, wool was bringing from 15 to 18 cents per pound. In order to remedy this condition the wool growers of Canada are desirous of having an adequate tariff placed upon foreign wool and to apply from the top stage down to the raw wool. The suggested duty is 34 cents per pound on raw wool, based upon the scoured, clean content, with graded protection from that point upwards. This application is supported by the Canadian Cooperative Wool Growers' Limited, with branches in both eastern and western Canada, by the Stock Growers' Association and by the Sheep Breeders' Association of Southern Alberta. This latter association passed a resolution to this effect at a meeting held on January 26, 1932, at which was represented over 900 sheep breeders, the owners of approximately 300,000 sheep. At a meeting of the Southern Saskatchewan Wool Growers' Association, representing over 125 breeders of sheep, the owners of approximately 50,000 breeding sheep, held at Maple Creek, Saskatchewan, on February 8, 1932, the following resolution was adopted:
Whereas: (a) The sheep raising industry in the western provinces as a commercial undertaking, with wool and mutton as its only source of revenue, is facing extinction unless its revenues can be increased.
(b)	Any forced liquidation under the present existing prices and financial conditions would mean ruin to the present owners, and only the few with substantial capital resources will be able to postpone this much longer.
(c)	The present purchasing power of the meat-consuming public has been materially reduced which, with depreciated currencies in foreign countries (the sources of our competing imports) will probably defer material improvement in mutton prices.
(d)	In a general field of agriculture, sheep raising is one branch with room for expansion providing the Canadian home market for wool and mutton can be retained to the grower at anything over costs of production has an important place.
(1)	On the western ranges, in making productive what may be termed semi-arid areas, and providing a regular supply of breeding stock for the farms, lambs for fall and winter finishing, as well as markets for feed to the farmers in the near districts, and
(2)	On the farms, in fitting in with a better balanced scheme of mixed farming, and providing returns for a quantity of otherwise unsaleable home grown fodder, and for unused pastures, both these branches of the industry are well worth preserving, and, if possible, enlarging.
(e)	In the markets of the LTnited States the range wools of the state of Montana and the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan have always been recognized as being similar in type and command the same prices in those markets.
1931 western wools were bringing to the growers from four to six cents per pound, whereas in Montana, U.S.A.. similar types and quantities returned from fifteen to eighteen cents per pound; therefore, there can be no reason for the wide difference betwen the Montana prices and those in Alberta and Saskatchewan than the protection afforded the Montana wool growers because of their import tariff on wool.
We cannot but believe that the enforcement of an import tariff on wools, sufficient to protect the Canadian producer in his home market, would have the same effect of improving prices to the Canadian grower.
(f)	With the home consumption in Canada far exceeding production of similar types and grades of wool as are grown in the dominion, and with Europe being the only export market left to us, it appears unfair and unjust that the producer should have to shoulder the added cost of freight handling and selling in that market (as well as having to accept practically the same net returns for wool sold in Canada) when there should be a ready demand for all his products in the home consuming market.
(g)	In the revision of the tariff at the session of parliament, September, 1930, all manufacturers of wool from the finished product to the yarn stage received substantial increases leaving out wool in the grease, scoured wools, tops, and noils as well as all forms of waste, resulting in the Canadian producer being unable to market his product in his own country, demonstrating clearly the fact that only substantial import tariff can improve existing conditions.
Therefore be it resolved: That we strongly urge upon the government of the Dominion of Canada that a tariff be placed on raw wool that will adequately protect the Canadian wool growers, and it is respectfully suggested that this should not be less than 34 cents per pound, general tariff, based on the scoured clean content.
To make a tariff on raw wools effective, we understand that it will be necessary to include
Canadian Wool Industry


Mr. J. S. STEWART (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, it is with some satisfaction that I rise to second the motion of the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Swanston)-satisfaction in that I know it will meet with the approval of the people of the riding which I have the honour to represent, and the vast majority of the people in that riding will endorse this resolution; satisfaction in that it gives me an opportunity to carry out a preelection promise to the electors of the Lethbridge riding that if elected we would support any resolution-and I think this one meets the case-and any legislation that had for its object the keeping of the home markets for the primary producers of this country; satisfaction in that it gives me an opportunity to tell the house about the situation that confronts many of the people who live in the Lethbridge riding, their difficulties and the economic conditions in which they find themselves. Lethbridge is a constituency that lies immediately north of the United States boundary, runs for sixty miles straight north from Montana, and extends 120 miles from the southwest corner to the northeast comer. Its grasses, climate and lands make it a very fine country for the sheep rancher who has prospered in the years gone by. In this constituency there are men who for twenty to thirty years have been engaged in the sheep ranching business.
As the hon. member for Maple Creek has stated, we have in Canada a little over 3,750,000 sheep. In Alberta we have some 520,000 sheep, or about one-seventh of the sheep population of the dominion. We have centering around Lethbridge, many men who are engaged in the sheep ranching business. There are farmers who have herds of twenty or more; there are ranchers who have herds running from fifty to as high as hundreds or even thousands, with about 3,000 as the highest number on our fine range lands. These men have banded themselves together into the Southern Alberta Sheep Breeders' Association which sells cooperatively, through the wool growers' cooperative body in Toronto, over 1,000,000 pounds of wool each year. These men have also associated with them independent growers who with the membership of the association number in all 900 farmers and ranchers and control
300,000	sheep, or about one-twelfth of the sheep population of the dominion. They also produce one-twelfth of the wool of this country. In the years 1920, 1921 and 1922 some of these sheep ranchers were rated as millionaires. They made a considerable amount of money during the war both from their wool and their mutton, but to-day we find that their equity is almost all gone, and unless some assistance is given, it will be only the very well-to-do who will be able to carry on much longer.
How has that come about? It is because of the very short-sighted policies of our hon. friends opposite, through lack of a policy of protection and by reason of the treaties they have made with other countries. The Sheep Breeders' Association of Southern Alberta holds frequent meetings, to which I have been invited since the election of 1930. It has been my privilege to attend their executive meetings where the bankers sit in with the sheep breeders, and where one acquires an intimate knowledge of the conditions, economic and otherwise, surrounding this industry. I think, therefore, that I am in a position to say with
Canadian Wool Industry

some confidence that I have a fair understanding of the difficulties under which the sheep ranchers of southern Alberta are operating at the present time. I am also firmly convinced that they are only right and just in urging this government to give them some protection on the production of their wool because if they do not get some assistance it will not be long before most of them will be put out of business, and there will come to an end the sheep ranching industry which has flourished in southern Alberta for more than thirty-five years. Here is a statement which they gave me just before I left home, which describes the conditions under which they are working. They say:
The sheep raising industry in the western provinces as a commercial undertaking, with wool and mutton as the only sources of its revenue, is facing extinction unless its revenues can be increased.
Besides attending the private meetings of the Sheep Breeders' Association it has also been my privilege to be present at their public meetings. They have held two since the election of 1930, one last year in February in the town of Magrath, and one on January 26 of this year, immediately before I left Lethbridge to attend the session here. At these meetings there were not present any manufacturers. The meetings were composed wholly and solely of men engaged in the sheep ranching business, and these men had arrived at the conclusion that if it was a good thing for the manufacturers to have a tariff, it was time that the sheep ranchers were accorded the same rights and privileges. One of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why I am here to represent the Lethbridge constituency as a Conservative, after twenty years' representation in this house by members of other parties, ten years by representation of the Liberal party and ten years by representation from the United Farmers party of Alberta, is because of conditions surrounding the sheep industry at the present time and during the last election -conditions which, as I said before were chiefly brought about through a lack of protection and through the unfair and unwise treaties which this countiy entered into with other countries.
It might not be amiss for me to indicate just what influence the sheep and wool business in southern Alberta had on the elections there in 1930. We had in the Lethbridge constituency, which I have the honour to represent, three candidates, one representing the Liberal party, one the United Farmers of Alberta, and myself as the Conservative candidate. The candidate of the United Farmers 
of Alberta, before he would accept the nomination, stated .publicly at the convention, that so far as he was concerned he believed in protection for the primary producers of Canada, and that if elected to parliament his policy would be protection for his hay to enable him to transport his hay from the province of Alberta into the neighbouring province of British Columbia, which market was being supplied by hay from the United States. He said that if he got such protection for his hay it would only be fair and right that his fellow-farmer in British Columbia who was raising fruit should get protection for his apples, and that he himself should be forced to buy the 'apples from his fellow-farmer in British Columbia. When that statement was made our local paper-and we have a very good daily in Lethbridge-sent out an
S.O.S. call to the electors of the riding, calling upon all those who believed in low tariffs to unite against the common enemy. It said that a vote for the United Farmers of Alberta candidate meant a vote for protection, and that a vote for the Conservative candidate meant a vote for protection, while a vote for the Liberal candidate meant a vote for low tariff. It was my privilege to visit some of the towns in the riding. I visited Magrath, which is known as the garden city of southern Alberta. The population there is made up of those who are engaged in farming, and many of the people there are interested financially and otherwise in the Sheep-raising industry. We have there the farmer with his twenty head of sheep, and we have the large sheep rancher with over two thousand head of sheep. In talking public matters over with them at public meetings I found that right there in the heart of the sheep-ranching country, which raises some of the prize sheep of the whole dominion, their neighbours were buying frozen mutton sent in from some other country. Then I went to the town of Raymond, ten or twelve miles away, and in conversation with a business man engaged in the sheep-ranching industry I asked him how he was getting along in his business. He told me that during the fall he had taken a number of his flock to the sugar factory to fatten them on its by-products, and after having kept them there all winter, with men to look after them, he bad sold them in the spring and lost just $1,500 in the transaction. Is it any wonder, then, that the polls right in the heart of that sheep-ranching country have returned for the first time in the history of southern Alberta a Conservative 'Candidate by a large majority for that part of the constituency?
I venture to predict, Mr. Speaker, from my

Canadian Wool Industry
knowledge of the farmers, that when another general election is held there will be many more representatives from western Canada sitting on this side of the house and' standing for tariff protection. I might point out that that good paper in Lethbridge, which always supports our hon. friends opposite, now serves a country where the vast majority of the people are opposed to the policies it advocates. For every individual in that district who advocates a low tariff policy, there are not only two but three people who are opposed to the tariff policy of that paper and of the Liberal party. A short time ago a Liberal organizer came to the Lethbridge riding. The comments made on the visit were broadcast throughout every district of southern Alberta. It was said the difficulty in Canada to-dav is that we have too high a tariff, and that what we need is a low tariff. We now see the spectacle in southern Alberta of the very paper which published the speech of that organizer advocating a tariff on wool, the very same policy as that advocated by hon. members on this side of the house. Having paid close attention to the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite during last session, and the short session of 1930, it is not difficult to understand why there should be on their part a lack of consistency with regard to tariff. After observing the actions of many hon. members opposite, I have no difficulty in understanding this lack of consistency. One is forced to the conclusion that if he wanted to know how a real, expert contortionist performs he should listen to a Liberal on the floor of this house discussing the tariff.
I want to say that the farmers of southern Alberta are alive to the benefits accruing from a tariff.. They realize it is right and fair that manufacturers should have their tariffs, so that industry in Canada may survive. They have also decided that if tariff is good for the manufacturer, it is good also for the wool producer; that is why we ore here to-day- to plead the cause of 'the wool growers before hon. members in this house.
At the meeting held on January 26, just before we came east to attend this session, about one hundred members of the Southern Alberta Sheep Breeders' Association were present. At that meeting the wool situation was discussed, recitals were passed and resolutions adopted unanimously. Those decisions were made by men belonging to both the Conservative party and the United Farmers of Alberta. I have before me one of the recitals which I shall place before hon. members:
In the general field of agriculture sheep raising is one branch with room for expansion, 41761-26
providing the Canadian home market for wool and mutton can be retained to the grower at anything over costs of production.
In so far as the mutton industry is concerned, this clause finds support. About
4,000,000 pounds of mutton were imported into Canada during each of the years 1929 and 1930. In the last mentioned year 4,443,527 pounds of mutton were imported, about
150,000	head of sheep. Undoubtedly, when the government brought down its tariff changes in September, 1930, it had in mind helping the sheep ranching industry, and those engaged in breeding sheep, because at that time the general tariff on mutton was increased from 6 cents to 8 cents, the British preferential tariff from 2 cents to 4 cents, and the tariff applicable to Australia from one-half cent to 3 cents per pound. Did those changes have beneficial results? As the boy on the street would say: "I'll say they did"- because during the year 1930 the imports were about 4,500,000 pounds whereas in 1931 they dropped to 1,185,327 pounds. Those figures represent a reduction in imports of over 3,000,000 pounds of mutton, and the farmers engaged in the sheep raising industry were allowed to supply this to the home market in Canada.
Unfortunately the price of mutton is very low. I have in my hand a telegram I received on February 13 from ithe Sheep Breeders' Association. In my view one of the reasons for the present low price of mutton is that we had a carry-over of about 5,000,000 pounds in cold storage at the commencement of this year. The telegram I have before me is as follows:
Finished lambs fed on concentrated feed since December 1, now selling at four one-half to three-quarter cents pound with limited demand. When additional feeding costs considered this represents less than October and November prices, so only hope is for improvement in wool and can see no chance for this unless retention Canadian market for Canadian wools through tariff action assured.
In the manufacture and preparation of wool, from its raw state up to the finished article, there are five phases or processes. First we have the wool in its natural state, or in the grease. Wool in the grease is wool as it is shorn from the lamb. Heretofore there has been a great deal of trouble selling wool in Canada because we did not have proper grading. During the last few years however government officials have graded our wool, and when the manufacturers want to buy a certain grade they have merely to send in their orders and they are properly filled. The grading has meant much to those men engaged in the wool business. We find that

Canadian Wool Industry

there is a manufacturer operating at a point very close to the city of Ottawa who uses nothing but Canadian wool. His orders are sent to the Canadian Cooperative Growers Association. I refer to Mr. Rosamond of Almonte, who in a statement made in March of last year said:
Now that the northwest wool is up to such a standard we find it splendid. We want to have the finest portion of the fleece, and we find it coming in splendid shape. We are using northwest wool entirely.
The use of the Canadian product has increased as a result of having reliable standards. The second phase in connection with wool is the scouring process by which burs, grease, smut and vegetable matters are removed. Foreign vegetable matter can be removed most effectively by a process of carbonization. After removal of foreign matter the fleece is washed and dried; during this process shrinkage, which is controlled by the degree of coarseness or fineness of the wool, takes place. Colonial wool and wools from foreign countries shrink as little as 30 per cent; in other words 70 per cent of the original amount of wool will remain after scouring and washing has taken place. So far as Canada is concerned however we suffer from much heavier shrinkage, ranging as high as 70 per cent. In western Canadian wool the average shrinkage is about 55 per cent. The third phase: after scouring the wool is combed; any wool over two inches in length can be subjected to this process. As a result of combing the manufacturer produces the long parallel skeins of wool used by the worsted manufacturers. Apart from the woollen skeins there are byproducts or left overs called noils, which can be used for the manufacture of woollen articles. The fourth stage of production is that performed by the spinning industry, and the fifth by the weaving industry. I ask hon. members to take note that concerning the first three stages of woollen processes there are no tariffs applicable. There are however tariffs in regard to yarns and spinning and weaving processes. From the time the government placed a tariff on yams, in September, 1930, grealt benefits were received by woollen manufacturers in Canada, because in the year 1930 we imported
6,000,000 pounds of yarns, whereas in 1931 by the assistance of the tariff our yarn imports were reduced to less than 3,000,000 pounds.
As has been said by the mover of this resolution, the annual consumption of wool in Canada is about 80,000,000 pounds. Canada produces about one quarter of what it uses, and yet in 1931 we exported approximately
4,750,000	pounds. We had left for domestic consumption approximately 16,500,000 pounds. 
A goodly part of this wool was used by the people in their homes; it was manufactured by the little custom mills in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. We also imported in 1930 wool in grease, up to and including yarns, to the amount of 40,714,450 grease pounds, and wool converted into the finished product to the extent of 35,000,000 grease pounds.
With the importation of this large amount of wool, and Mr. Rosamond, one of the leading manufacturers in Ontario, stating that our wool is plenty good enough for his plant, why should it be necessary for us to export 4,750,000 pounds a year? That is the question worrying the sheep breeder and the wool grower in western Canada. I should like to draw the attention of the house to this article which appeared in the Canadian Textile Journal of June 18, 1931:
With the expansion of the output of Canadian mills that is coming, and that is, indeed, already well under way, it should be possible to absorb all Canadian cross-bred wool and still have a large market to offer to other woolgrowing countries.
But cross-bred wools form the great bulk- about 85 per cent in point of fact-of the raw wool used in Canada.
It is a matter of first class importance that Canadian mills, after absorbing all the home grown cross-bred wool available, shall fill their surplus^ requirements in this regard with wool from New Zealand.
It was hoped, and that hope has been realized, that by the tariff changes of September, 1930, there would be a stimulation of the textile trade of Canada, and many speeches were made last session which stated that to be the fact. But it was also hoped by those of us who live in western Canada that as a result of those tariff changes it might stimulate the purchasing and the use of Canadian wool by our manufacturers. But I am sony to say such has not been the case; we are exporting more wool to-day than we did before those tariff changes were made. In 1930 we exported 4,381,754 pounds, and last year-after the tariff changes-4,769,574 pounds, or an increase of over 350,000 pounds in one year. Until last fall we in southern Alberta had been accustomed to having representatives of the wool houses in Boston and other parts of the United States visit our country to purchase part of the wool that is sold by the independent wool growers, but this year no one has come, and it is impossible for us to sell any of our wool to the American houses. It may be asked: Why are they not purchasing? The answer is simply that the tariff has been raised against our wool. In 1921 the United States tariff on scoured wool

Canadian Wool Industry
was 20 cents a pound; in 1930 it was raised to 34 cents a pound. To-day we are selling our wool to Great Britain, and the added cost of transportation has to be borne by the sheep men, the wool producers, and as a consequence they are getting very low prices for their wool. I understand that in eastern Canada the price that the sheep breeder gets for his wool is not so important, but in western Canada it is one of the main factors in the sheep breeding industry, because 50 per cent of our income comes from our wool. Shortly before I came here I visited the sheep breeding country with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). We heard a gentleman who has many fine sheep offer to give their wool to the sheep shearers in return for their work, but they refused his offer.
The Sheep Breeders' Association of Southern Alberta at a meeting on January 26th last issued the following statement:
1931 western wools are bringing to the grower from four to six cents per pound, whereas in Montana, U.S.A., similar types and qualities returned from fifteen to eighteen cents per pound; therefore, there can be no reason for the wide difference between the Montana prices and those in Alberta and Saskatchewan than the protection afforded the Montana wool growers because of their import tariff on wools.
We cannot but believe that the enforcement of an import tariff on wools, sufficient to protect the Canadian producer in his home market would have the same effect of improving prices to the Canadian grower.
I should like to place before the house an article which appears in the February number of the Farm and Ranch Review. In answer to a letter which was sent to the editor, he wrote this editorial:
I agree with you fully that the price of wool is absolutely disgraceful. I have dealt with the matter time and again in the columns of the Review. One very effective remedy would be a reasonable protective tariff on raw wool. I have brought this to the attention of the Sheep Breeders' Association several times and have urged it in the columns of the Review, but so far without success.
Wool at the present moment is absolutely on the free list, -which, in my judgment, is a scandalous situation.
I think the house will agree with me that with the price of mutton at 4i to 4J cents a pound, and with the price of wool at 4 to 6 cents a pound, if the present conditions obtain for some time, and the sheep breeders are forced to liquidate, they cannot do so without taking a very heavy loss. It is not surprising that they state:
Any forced liquidation under the present existing prices and financial conditions would mean ruin to the present owners and only the few with substantial capital resources will be able to postpone this much longer.
Not only did our exports of wool increase last year, but our imports also increased, and although the manufacturer was given protection-and with that protection we most heartily agree-yet he evidently failed to purchase his wool from the Canadian grower. Probably he had some inducement to do so- he imports his wool free, that is, wool in its raw state,, scoured or pulled up to and including tops and noils. In this semi-manufactured state he is able to import the wool at a lower price than he could scour and comb it himself. It means a. difference possibly of hundreds of thousands of dollars in a year so far as the manufacturer is concerned and I do not altogether blame him for doing so. But we do say that we have in Canada plants that are equipped to carry out all these processes: we have plants that can scour the wool and we have plants that can comb it. Why not therefore have that part of the manufacturing carried out in Canada as well as the processing from the tops to the finished article? I am stating the views of the Sheep Breeders' Association of Southern Alberta when I say that they are asking for a tariff on wool in its raw state, on wool scoured and on wool known as tops and noils.
Before I conclude I wish to place before the house a resolution that came before this meeting of farmers at Lethbridge on January 26 last, a resolution which was endorsed not only by those who were there as Conservatives but also by those who were there as Liberals and by those who came as farmers. They all want a tariff on wool, and they declared:
That rve strongly urge upon the government of the Dominion of Canada that a tariff be placed upon raw wool that will adequately protect the Canadian -wool growers, and it is respectfully suggested that this should not be less than 34 cents per pound general tariff based on the scoured clean content.
The sheepmen of southern Alberta, I feel, have every confidence in this government. A delegation of sheepmen had an opportunity to p-lace before the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) at an open meeting held in Lethbridge in the fall of 1930 their views with regard to the protection of the industry. The sheepmen of southern Alberta who are engaged in the ranching business have been very fairly treated by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy) in the adjustments he has made in connection with the lease rentals they have to pay to his department, and they have every faith and confidence in the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), who has also visited our locality and has heard the proposals put forward by those
Canadian Wool Industry

interested in the sheep industry. They are also confident in that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) comes from the province of Alberta and knows the conditions there; he knows the conditions under which the sheepmen are labouring. I am sure that he will not only sympathize with them but will lend them aid in the time of their need.
I respectfully suggest to the government that in any treaties that are being made the primary producer of wool in Canada be not asked to step up to the bargain counter and foot the bill to allow other products to be exported out of the dominion and other items to come into the dominion to the disadvantage of our producers. In any trade agreements that are made I would urge upon the government to see to it that the primary producer of wool in western Canada is given a square deal. I would respectfully ask the house to adopt the resolution which has been moved by the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Swanston), and may I add that we trust the government will take action upon it.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: While we have no exportable surplus, a tariff on wool would undoubtedly raise the price of this commodity, and the very moment we had sufficient wool to be able to export, the tariff would not affect the price at all. The result would be that wool would fall to the price at which it was selling on the world market. We have had examples enough of that to know how true it is. All that a tariff would do in the meantime would be to encourage the production of much more wool than is now produced so that we should very rapidly go on an export basis. And when we did the price would be no better. In the meantime a great . many people who thought that the good price would continue would have spent money on their flocks and gone into the industry on a more extensive scale, and they would then come to parliament asking for help, to a greater degree even than at the moment.
Surely the story of the dairy farmer in Canada is recent enough for us to learn the lesson he has been taught. I should really like to support the resolution, because the hon. member who moved it (Mr. Swanston) and the hon. member who seconded it have suggested that it would help the government to carry out their preelection promises. Heaven knows they need a little help in that direction. I wonder that anyone on the government side has the sheer nerve to recall the dairy industry story from 1930 up until today. The tariff was going to do wonders for the dairy industry. A lot of people knew 
what it was going to do:	It was going to
raise the price of butter for one thing, and it was going to bring in prosperous times. The same is true about eggs. As a matter of fact, one hates now to recall the prices of dairy products at that time and to compare them with the present prices. In the meantime we have had this tariff stacked up and it has done no good at all. Under the circumstances, as the representative of an agricultural constituency, and as the representative of intelligent people-for there are still some, I mean on the tariff and not necessarily in regard to other things-I am opposed to the resolution. I am not going to fool myself about it, not even for the two hon. members who preceded me. I am opposed to it because it is some more of the sheer nonsense we have been going on with in regard to agricultural products. You cannot raise the price of farm products by tariff. You can until you are ready to go on the markets of the world with an exportable surplus, but in the long run you cannot do anything about it. This is only one more step in the wrong direction, and we are stepping along in that direction swiftly enough, I think. Our imports are falling and our exports must fall too. Our foreign trade is being shot to pieces. No Canadian enjoys seeing the reports as they come out month by month, no matter to what party he may belong. For all these reasons I must oppose the resolution. We are living in an interdependent world when tariffs can no longer be maintained. We who are here to-day are going to see a reversal of policy in regard to tariffs the world ov*r, and I do not want to postpone the task or make it more difficult. I am therefore opposed to the resolution.


Mr. G. D. STANLEY (East Calgary):: The mover (Mr. Swanston) and the seconder of the resolution spoke from the standpoint of the farmers who are growers of wool, and I am going to spend a few minutes discussing the protection of the wool industry from the point of view of one interested in the industry as it affects the city. Eefore, however, entering on that phase of the question I wish to summarize a few facts that have impressed themselves on my mind during the discussion of this resolution.
It appears that the imports of wool, principally raw wool and the wool in the first and second stages of fabrication, are four times as great as the production of wool in our whole country. At the same time, of the wool which is produced in Canada, probably one-third is being exported to find markets abroad. Another thing that has struck me is

Canadian Wool Industry
the well-established fact that Canadian wool is the equal of any other wool produced and meets all the requirements of the manufacturer in the fabrication of his textiles. That in itself would seem to indicate that there is every reason why the initial producers of wool should receive a protection sufficient to safeguard them against unfair competition from abroad. Again, if I have gathered correctly, the manufacturers of the various textiles processed past the first or second stage have received substantial increases in the tariff, so much so that they have placed themselves on a safe basis. Protection has been given to this industry but they have not reciprocated to the initial producer; on the contrary they have increased their importations from outside. Those who fabricate and manufacture are receiving substantial protection while the growers receive no assistance whatsoever. If there is such a difference between the amount required by the Canadian manufacturers and the amount actually produced, it stands to reason that there is a substantial potential market for raw wool, provided the initial grower receives a fair return for his production.
The growing of wool goes hand in hand with the production of mutton. While sheep may be raised for the purposes of obtaining wool, no embarrassment need be suffered by the meat end of the industry. The raising of sheep for the purposes of wool and mutton should be protected by this parliament, and I have no hesitation in supporting the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Maple Creek.
The manufacturer has not seen fit to cooperate with the wool grower and in view of the ample protection he receives I do not think any consideration need be given to him in regard to the placing of a duty upon the importation of raw wool. It is only fair that he should be compelled to purchase Canadian wool from Canadian producers.


Edward James Young: Does the Canadian manufacturer pay more for the wool he imports than for the Canadian product?


George Douglass Stanley: The foreign wool is
cheaper; that is why he imports it. He obtains it in semi-fabricated form because that work can be done cheaper in foreign countries. That is why we want protection.
I come from an urban community in Alberta and I would like to repeat some remarks made last year in regard to the geographical situation of this province. Whether we go east with our products or whether we send our manufactured products to the west, we are at
the extreme end of transportation. We have to pay the top price for transportation either way. This province is very rich in natural products. We have cheap coal and abundant water power. There is a considerable home market for manufactured goods and we have a potential market in the orient which is not by any means inaccessible. It is( felt by many that every step should be taken to industrialize our towns and cities and also to encourage the industrialization of our agriculture. The wool industry offers one of the best illustrations in this regard. It is important to encourage the growing of wool to be sold to manufacturers in eastern Canada or elsewhere provided a sufficient price can be obtained, but from the standpoint of our towns and cities as well as of the initial producers, it is more important that advantage should be taken of the home markets which are available both for the producer and for the manufacturer.
Fifty per cent of the wool produced in western Canada is produced in the province of Alberta, and a large portion of that production is in the constituency of the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Stewart). In 1930 Alberta imported from all foreign countries woollen products amounted to $3,500,000. The imports from other provinces in Canada amounted to $2,500,000. It will be seen that there is a potential home market amounting to about $6,000,000. When the three western provinces are taken as a group, they offer a potential home market amounting to over $37,000,000. It is not claimed that the province of Alberta will be able to retain all these markets, but if encouragement can be given to the production of manufactured goods within the province it would be good business for this government, for the provincial government and for the people of the province, to translate this $5,000,000 or this $37,000,000 into a payroll for Alberta workmen.
The woollen industry offers an opening for the fabrication of raw wool into all its various stages. As the hon. member for Lethbridge has just said, at the present time some of our wool goes all the way to the old country where it is cleaned and processed up to the stage where it can reenter this country free of duty. Why should wool grown in our province be transported all that distance, fabricated to the point at which it is permitted to enter Canada free of duty, and then possibly be shipped back to our province? Under a reasonable protection, a portion of this work could be carried on by our own workmen in our own cities. This matter has been engaging the attention of many men who have gone into this question with great thoroughness.
Canadian Wool Industry


Mr. CHAPLIN:: We have heard that talk for fifteen years.


Mr. IRVINE:: Yes, the only trouble is that this interdependent world apparently does not know that it is interdependent, and the fact is that tariffs do go on. I am not in this connection going to subscribe to any argument which might be brought up on the old battleground of tariff or no tariff, protection or free trade. I shall not subscribe to or associate myself with fanaticism on either side of the question, and we have that on both sides of the house undoubtedly. On the contrary, I want to point out, as has often been done, that we are dealing not with a theory involving the question whether we ought to have free trade or protection, or whether the world would be better off under the one policy or the other, but with this
one fact, that the wool producers in Canada have to buy innumerable articles which are protected and which are increased in price by protection, while the commodities which they are engaged in producing have to be sold on the markets of the world without any protection, thus placing them at a disadvantage as compared with the other classes in Canada with whom they must deal. That is a practical proposition, and I am speaking of it now for the reason that I have received wires and letters from people in my riding urging me to support this very resolution. I have had wires also from the wool growers' association, and innumerable letters from individuals. I am going to read a section from one letter which I think will place before the house better than I can the viewpoint of the wool grower, and that will be just about all I want to say in connection with the matter.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I do not think the hon.
member has said very much yet, anyway.


William Irvine: My hon. friend has been so busy leading the forces of reaction for the last six months or so that I question whether he is capable of passing judgment on a matter of that kind. Further, when my hon. friend himself says something, either here or anywhere else), he will be in a better position to judge whether other people say anything or not.
In quoting a section of this letter may I say to my hon. friend who has just interrupted (Mr. Hepburn) that I am carrying out a principle to which I have always subscribed, and that is that my task is to say from this seat what the people I represent want me to say. That is perhaps too democratic for my hon. friend, bift that is what I am trying to do now, and I will leave the matter to the judgment of the house. This writer, says:
We have absolutely no protection on our raw wool but pay a pretty stiff duty on woollen goods. Under ordinary conditions I am not an advocate of protective duties, but as Canada for the present at any rate has determined on a protectionist policy I feel that we farmers in all fairness should get whatever benefit we can out of that policy. I am speaking not only for myself but also for a large number of your constituents, who, like myself, would very much appreciate your best efforts to have this matter put right.
That, Mr. Speaker, I think puts in a few words the position of the wool growers and what they are asking in this resolution. I would like to suggest to the government that if they cany out this resolution it may be necessary to do a little more than that. We are aware of the fact which the hon. member for Southeast Grey has mentioned, that protection does cease to have any value to agri-
Canadian Wool Industry

culture at that point where the prices paid at home are determined by the export price. That is true; it has been true in regard to butter to a very large extent, and it will be true, I presume, in regard to any other commodity which may be similarly dealt with. It may be necessary in regard to the farmers who have received protection on butter, and who may receive protection on wool or other products, for the government to go a little further than imposing a tariff which is only nominal, and make such tariff real by adopting some such methods as have been adopted in New Zealand and Australia where export boards have been created to control from one common centre the export market and to maintain the home price at an economic level, the board having power to issue the necessary regulations. What I would call the economic level is the price at which it is possible for the producer to continue to produce under all the given economic conditions.
I	hope Mr. Speaker that the government will take into consideration not only the wool growers but also the dairy interests and other sections of agriculture which may be benefited by protective measures. I am not advocating either of the old philosophies of protection or free trade, but I do advocate equality- and may I repeat this-equality of the classes in Canada, so far as legislation affecting their economic life is concerned, so that those who buy protected goods may receive protection equal to those who sell protected goods. If (hat cannot be done, some other means will have to be considered whereby such equality mav be effected. I hope the wool growers will receive the consideration at the hands of the government outlined by the resolution.


Follin Horace Pickel: I should like, Mr. Speaker, to register my approval of the suggestions contained in the resolution now before the house. Statistics have been given by the mover and seconder, so that I need not revert to that phase of the matter. I should like to say, however, that the west is not the only section of Canada interested in the production of and duty on wool. Quebec and Ontario, especially Quebec, are much interested in this matter. There are no better sheep raising lands on the face of the earth than those existing in Quebec. Forty-five or fifty years ago within a radius of fifteen miles of my home I could count twelve woollen mills all of which were doing a very good business, but they are all gone because, so far as we are concerned, the sheep industry is a dead one. To-day we import hundreds of thousands of foreign lamb

carcasses and vast quantities of foreign wools; as 'the mover and seconder have stated, those wools are brought into the country after partial fabrication has taken place. The fact that they are partly manufactured before they enter Canada means that there is an appreciable loss of labour which could be done here.
I have risen simply to state that I am in perfect accord with the motion and would ask that a good stiff duty, one that would really be effective, be given to the industry.


Mr. T. A. THOMPSON (Lanark):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to speak at length upon the resolution now before the house. Facts concerning the woollen industry have been debated thoroughly by hon. members who have preceded me. I wish to say, however, that not only in western Canada but in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and the maritimes there are large areas of land admirably suited to the raising of sheep. The sheep raisers in the part of Ontario I have the honour to represent have for many years felt the need of assistance. The hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Swanston) has said that we are producing only about 20,000,000 pounds of wool in Canada where our annual consumption is about 80,000,000 pounds. If adequate protection is afforded, however, I am sure Canada can produce a quality of wool equal to that now being imported by our manufacturers. It has been argued, and probably with some effect, that we are not producing a wool capable of being manufactured into the finest yams. If such is the case, our inability to produce first class wool should be investigated. I am firmly of the opinion, however, that if we are given proper protection and encouragement we can produce wool as fine in quality as that produced in any part of the world. Certainly if there is one part of the agricultural industry requiring protection, it is the sheep growing section. I am heartily in accord with the provisions of the resolution.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


John Anderson Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I wish heartily to support the resolution before the house in favour of a duty on raw wool. In doing so I am expressing the sentiments not only of the wool growers and

Canadian Wool Industry
sheep raisers in the constituency I represent but of those engaged in the industry throughout British Columbia.
If I caught the remarks correctly of the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail) this afternoon, she said she was not going to help the government carry out its preelection promises. I should like to address this question to the hon. member-I am sorry she is not in her seat: Did she ever support any government that has done more to carry out its preelection promises than has the present government? It seems to me that the efforts put forth by this government to make good its preelection promises, and the success that has attended those efforts, will stand as a mark for a long time to come for any succeeding government to reach. She also said that in the recent election campaign the Conservatives promised that the tariff was going to increase the price of butter. Probably some of them did make that promise. But as a member of the Conservative party let me say I never understood that the tariff could be expected to keep up the price of butter in the face of reduced prices brought about by world competition, and that while we might still maintain our domestic price, we could not get away from the inevitable effect of declining prices in the export market. I do not think any Conservative in the course of the campaign ever intended to convey any other impression when dealing with the effect of the tariff on the price of butter. The hon. member also said that we have "stacked up the tariff but we have not got any good out of it." I do not think that is a very temperate statement. I would remind my hon. friend that whether or not the people in her riding have received benefits from increased tariff rates, certainly we have benefited in British Columbia. Had it not been for the tariff policy of this government the fruit and vegetable growers of British Columbia, I venture to say, would have got nothing at all for their crop last year in face of the dumping competition which then threatened, but which never became effective simply by reason of the prompt action taken by the government. I venture to say that there are many other instances where benefits have been derived by the people of Canada from the tariff increases which were imposed last session.
I have before me a resolution with respect to a duty on raw wool, the subject matter of this resolution, passed by the British Columbia Sheep Breeders' Association, and I will read it to the house:
Whereas the Canadian sheep industry is having a hard struggle to carry on, and
Whereas the amount of wool produced in Canada does not begin to supply the amount of
wool required by the Canadian factories; it does not seem reasonable or right that 85 per cent of our wool should go outside of Canada for a market. The United States, with a high tariff, use similar wool to that produced in Canada and the grower receives 15 to 17 cents per pound when Canadian wool is only bringing 5 to 6 cents per pound. Would a tariff not help the Canadian wool producer?
We as tax payers are paying for care of unemployed and the factories of Canada are importing a semi-manufactured product, giving employment to men of other countries.
Therefore, be it resolved,-That we urge a general tariff be placed on all importations of raw wool and wool products, as tops, noils, scoured wools and all forms of wool and waste.
I may say that the head office of the British Columbia Sheep Breeders' Association and also of the wool cooperative organization happens to be in the city of Kamloops in my constituency.
British Columbia as a whole is very much interested in the sheep raising industry. At present it has a sheep population of 197,600 head, with a wool production of 1,103,000. For 85 per cent of that production the wool growers have to find a market in England. The wool has to be shipped out of the country for processing in England, and then shipped back here as a semi-manufactured article. Our manufacturers of woollen goods, of course, are using a good deal of that same class of wool. Our sheep breeders claim that if our manufacturers have to import that semi-manufactured wool, would it not be good business to give a certain measure of protection to our raw product to ensure that that processing shall be performed in Canada. As has already been pointed out, we have no scouring and combing industry in this country, and it is to encourage such an industry that this tariff protection is asked for.
With regard to our wool imports and exports, I should like to place these figures on Hansard. In 1929 we imported $54,428,000 worth of wool and its products.


Edward James Young: We imported $54,000,000
worth?


John Anderson Fraser: We imported
$54,428,000 worth of wool and its products; in 1930, $46,644,000; in 1931, $33,637,000. Of course, during the last few years there has been a drop in the importation of wool just as there has been of other commodities, and this is accounted for partly by the drop in prices. I want to analyse these importations of raw wool. In 1929 we imported 11,358,125 pounds.


Edward James Young: Have you got the value?
Canadian Wool Industry


John Anderson Fraser: No, but the
valu,* can be easily ascertained. According to the Bureau of Statistics this wool was imported from the following countries:
United Kingdom	 4,795,000
New Zealand	 1,744,000
United States	 1,431,000
Australia	 762,000
British South Africa	 278,000
Argentina	 174,000
Following are the percentage figures of these imports:
Per cent
United Kingdom	 51
New Zealand	 18J
United States	 15
Australia	 8
British South Africa	 3
Argentina	 2
I understand that the National Research Council was asked to make an investigation into the quality of our wool, and that to get a proper basis on which to work they analysed these importations and found that the countries of origin were not correctly given by the Bureau of Statistics; that is, instead of being shipped direct, the wool we imported had been shipped from Australia or New Zealand to the United States, or Great Britain, and thence to Canada. The Bureau of Statistics made an analysis of the countries of origin as well as they possibly could and they have given out a statement in this regard. Of that 11.35S.000 pounds the National Research Council find that the following are the figures with respect to countries of origin: United Kingdom, 3,435.000, or 30 per cent; New Zealand, 3,514,000, 30 per cent; Australia,
1,349,000,	12 per cent; South Africa, 680,000, 6 per cent; the Argentine, 5 per cent; and the United States, 173.000, or 1} per cent. You will observe the difference in the shipments from the United States; instead of
1.434.000	pounds, as reported by the Bureau of Statistics, the National Research Council give only 173,000 pounds of American wool coming into Canada. The rest came through the United States. This analysis of imports is based on 11,358,000 pounds of raw wool in 1929, and indicates that for that year the supplies came from the different countries in these proportions: New Zealand and Australia, 43 per cent; United Kingdom, 30 per cent; South Africa, 6 per cent. We also imported
202.000	pounds from the Irish Free State and British India, or 2 per cent of our imports, making a total of 81 per cent of empire origin and 19 per cent from other countries- quite a different analysis from that given by the Bureau of Statistics. I understand there is a tendency in the trade at the present time to restrict imports through the United States

by the appointment of Canadian agents in Australia and New Zealand, so that importations in the future will come largely direct from those two countries.
So far as the imposition of a tariff on raw wool is concerned, I take it that it is the policy of the present government to place a tariff on natural products of this kind. With particular reference to the sheep industry, I might point out that until June, 1931, our tariff on mutton was 15, 25 and 27j per cent, and in June last year we raised that tariff to 4, 6 and 8 cents per pound, with a 4 cent per pound rate applying under the Australian treaty as well. As was pointed out this afternoon, imports of mutton declined from nearly
4,500,000	pounds to about 1,200,000 pounds between 1930 and 1931, showing that the imposition of the tariff must have been a factor in the reduction of imports. If it is a factor in the reduction of imports of mutton, I think it is a sound argument that it would be a likely factor in reducing the imports of wool as well.
As I said a few moments ago, the trouble in Canada seems to be that while we impose a duty on the manufactured article we have no duty on the raw product or on the product in its initial stages of manufacture; that is to say, we have no duty applying to the scouring and combing industry. Now it is for the purpose of establishing such an industry that this tariff is asked. There is a widespread opinion among wool producers in British Columbia-whether it is justified or not I am not prepared to say, but I mention this for the information of the government- that the manufacturers have altogether too much say in regard to the making of these tariffs, and it would appear that what we are saying with regard to wool bears out that statement.


An hon. MEMBER:: Come over here.


John Anderson Fraser: No; I will get
you over here. As to the quality of wool, it has been contended by the manufacturers, rightly or wrongly, that the quality was not up to the standard required by the Canadian industry. I understand that the National Research Council have made investigations in this regard but so far they have not arrived at a conclusion. It is likely, however, that these investigations will be continued and that in the not distant future some statement will be made by the council which will once for all settle that question. But there is this to say on this point. The wool producers, as a result of their own investigations, and from information derived from various sources,

Canadian Wool Industry
have reached the conclusion that there are no grounds for a charge of that kind and that Canadian wool can be worked into all sorts of commodities necessary for Canadian consumption. The government, in addition to providing a tariff on mutton to assist this industry, have also given assistance to a very considerable extent through the Department of Agriculture; for I find that they expend in one way or another, for the benefit of the sheep and wool industry of Canada, the sum of $125,000 in that department. If they have gone to this extent it seems to me only a short step towards meeting the requests of the wool producers throughout Canada for this increase in the duty on raw wool.
For many years the wool industry in the United States has been protected, with the result that it has expanded in proportion to the population of that country. In 1870 they had a tariff of from 25 to 35 per cent on raw wool, and that has been increased from time to time; and now, as was pointed out this afternoon, there is a tariff over there of from 22 to 37 cents per pound of clean content, which is a substantial protection for the United States industry. Shielded behind that protection their industry has gradually extended, not only in the production of manufactures but also in the variety of products turned out. Moreover, it was the means of introducing new and improved machinery and methods in the woollen textile industry of the United States. If a tariff can produce such results in the United States I see no reason why similar results should not follow the imposition of a tariff in this country. The industry in the United States employs to-day a total of 180,000 people and consumes 200,000 tons of raw product.
I have no hesitation in supporting the resolution submitted by the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Swanston), seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Stewart). The conditions that prevail in the sheep industry in Alberta are very similar to those that prevail in the part of British Columbia which I have the honour to represent in this house. While the results of a tariff may not be apparent right away, I imagine it will not be long before the industry will show signs of improvement. I have much pleasure in supporting the resolution.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted
to defend the government against its own supporters? The resolution under discussion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that the government of the Dominion of Canada place a duty on raw wool that would reasonably protect the Canadian wool growers.
What is protection? Hon. members opposite, for whom I have the highest regard, say that it would protect the sheep industry of this country. Will that industry be benefited by high or low tariff? I am informed that the government has removed the dumping duty on wool, and for this action it is to be congratulated. It shows that the government is getting away from that economic nationalism which has proved to be the curse of the world, more especially to the United States. Some years ago that country started to erect high tariff barriers and the example was followed by other countries and by this government. A very distinguished person, speaking last year in Buenos Aires, stated that trade is exchange and is essentially international.
Some hon. gentlemen opposite remind me of the Bourbons who had forgotten nothing and learned nothing. For many years we have heard that protection is the remedy for all evils. Last year I put a question on the order paper asking for the date when the highest duty on butter was in effect, and the date when the lowest price had prevailed, and the answer I received disclosed that when the duty was the highest the price was the lowest. To such an extent was that true that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) allowed a large quantity of butter to come out of storage without paying duty. When I inquired of the minister why the price of butter should be so low in the face of the high duty, he informed me that as we were then starting to import butter, we were forced to meet the price quoted by other countries, especially on the London markets.
Many prominent members of the Conservative party have expressed their views in connection with high tariff. There is one gentleman who must be considered as having still a very high standing in the party, as he has lately been made the official leader of the party in the other house; I refer to the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. On April 8, 1926, as reported on page 2253 of Hansard, he is quoted as follows:
Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw):	You contend that
if the tariff is taken off the prices immediately rise?
Mr. Meighen:	We contend it and we know
it, because we see the facts.
Apparently that view has been accepted by the government in the removal of the dumping duty on wool. That is a step in the right
Canadian Wool Industry

direction, and I congratulate the government upon their action. The Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) is quoted on the same page of Hansard as follows:
I say the protective policy of Canada gives the manufacturers in Canada, and the farmers for that matter, an opportunity to hold the market for themselves; and they sell the goods cheaper when they can hold the market for themselves. That is what protection does. That is the mistake my hon. friends from the west make. If you take off the tariff you raise the price of goods.
I agree with that statement, and I am glad that that policy is being followed by this government.
The speech of the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) was just a mass of figures and interesting only to an expert mathematician. One cannot remember the figures quoted but one can easily arrive at a conclusion, and a definite conclusion seems to have been reached by such eminent Conservatives as the Minister of Railways and the official leader of the party in the other house. Hon. members on the other side who have taken part in this debate would derive great benefit from reading the page of Hansard from which I have quoted.
If this country is to prosper it must trade with other countries. Trade is international and the lower the tariff barriers are the more trade there will be. Unemployment can be cured only by increasing our trade, and if high barriers are erected as a measure of so-called protection, in a very short time conditions will be even worse than they are at the present time.


Mr. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, in the course of this debate we have listened to many able representations of the views expressed in the resolution. It has always appeared to me, in considering the problem of diversification, that there is no branch of the farmer's work that lends itself more readily to desirable expansion in this country than that of sheep raising. In every province of Canada there are tracts of land which are particularly suited to the raising of sheep and possibly lend themselves to no other use. On some of them for generations sheep have been raised, but unfortunately the industry seems to be in a languishing condition, or at least it has not increased considerably, and there undoubtedly is an impediment in the way. That impediment is the fact that the industry is not carried on under lucrative auspices and is not remunerative to the farmer who spends his money and gives his time in that occupation.
Those interested in the industry-officials, for instance, of the Department of Agricul-tMr. Pouliot.]
ture-have endeavoured to increase the interest taken in sheep raising, but their work has largely been unsuccessful. So long as we leave the industry in the condition in which it is to-day, so long as we refuse to make use of such assistance as is advocated in the resolution, so long will the industry stand still. The hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Swanston) introduces his resolution at an apposite time. We have recently seen a considerable increase in the consumption of mutton and lamb of Canadian production resulting from an increase in the tariff. Wool, no doubt looked upon in the past as a raw material, has remained untouched by tariff. If Canada produced no wool that policy might have been reasonable; but not only does Canada produce wool, she produces it in the grades required and is capable of very considerable expansion in quantity, so much so that with reasonable assistance it would not be long before we produced all that our manufacturers require.
When certain items in the woollen fabric schedule were raised recently, there resulted a satisfactory increase in production, but unfortunately the benefits of that increase died out before they reached the wool grower He did not benefit therefrom because the manufacturer imported in increasing quantities the semi-fabricated article. If, therefore, it would be possible to decrease largely the quantity imported so that the actual grower of wool would receive the benefit, we would see many areas in Canada at present undeveloped given their chance of expansion.
What, then, has stood in the way? The only thing I can think of is that proper consideration for the consumer which must always be given by a government contemplating an increase in tariff. But would the addition of a reasonable tariff in this case unduly affect the consumer? In a man's suit of clothes, weighing possibly four and a half pounds, it is probable that the woollen content amounts to some four pounds. As we have already heard to-day, the various stages of scouring, washing and turning the wool in the grease into cloth, reduce the quantity of wool to such an extent that in all probability eight pounds of wool in the grease are required to provide the woollen content of the finished suit. If, to the present price, yes, or to double the present price of eight pounds of wool in the grease, were added the reasonable duty suggested in this resolution,
I maintain that it would even then be but a small factor in the cost of the finished article. If a suit of clothes cost S20 or $70, eight pounds of wool with the reasonable duty added would be but a small factor; and

Canadian Wool Industry
we should remember that the lower the price of the finished suit, the less the woollen content. If there were a tendency for the manufacturer to increase the price, we could surely look to that competition which exists in the woollen fabric industry to prevent undue extortion.
I support this resolution because it has appeared to me for a considerable time that until we do something to assist the wool grower as apart from the manufacturer, we shall continue to see the wool industry languish. Experts tell us that the grades of wool required by Canadian manufacturers are all capable of production in Canada if they are not all so produced to-day. We know at the present time there are certain grades right up at the top of the list which come under the category of the superfine wools which are not produced in this country, but we are also assured by experts who have examined into the matter from the production point of view that in western Canada, particularly in British Columbia, where the mellowing influences of the Pacific breezes are felt, it is quite possible to grow those fleeces from which the superfine wool can be made. In the valleys of southern British Columbia from which I come, the sheep industry has been in existence for a long time. Climatically and geographically that district is well suited to the purpose. The lambs are born in the valleys, the flocks are taken to the mountain tops for summer range and brought down to the plateaux and foothills when winter comes, and from there they are returned to the shelter of the valleys where they receive the food produced from the cultivated land. At the north Okanagan exhibition, which yearly is increasing its number of exhibits, I saw two years ago seventeen breeds of sheep on exhibit, a greater number of breeds, I must admit, than I knew existed in western Canada. Year by year the sheep growers are endeavouring to improve their breeds, to do all they can to produce wool of the best quality, and most suited to the Canadian market. There is no doubt that assistance of some kind must be given to them if the industry' is not to languish and disappear.
For these reasons I gladly support the rtsolution introduced by the hon. member for Maple Creek, and trust it will receive the earnest consideration of the government.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, with the object in view, namely the encouragement of sheep raising for the purpose of supplying wool to our factories, I fully sympathize. I quite agree with the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) who has just
taken his seat, that we have not done enough in that regard. In that part of the province of Quebec in which is situated the constituency I represent there is not the slightest doubt that very large tracts of land not fit for other purposes would be excellent sheep-raising grounds, and the same is true of very large portions of territory in other parts of Quebec and in Ontario and the maritime provinces. But as to the means propounded in the resolution for encouraging this industry I must say that I have some hesitation. I remember that in the past I advocated the same thing- putting up the duty on raw wool so as to encourage the raising of sheep; but after I had given more time and study to the question I came to the conclusion that that was perhaps not the best remedy for the situation.
First of all, speaking at least for eastern Canada, I think there has been too much neglect in the matter of the breeds of sheep which have been introduced into this country. Of late years something has been done by the government of the province of Quebec to encourage the breeding of good wool-growing sheep, but that is still a very feeble effort. As to the federal government, I remember last year receiving a letter from an agricultural organization in my county asking under what conditions they could secure from the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa the services of blood sires to improve their stock. I made inquiry and I found out that it would have been possible for them to get a stallion; but it seems to me that in the present state of things it is not the breeding of horses that should be encouraged but rather the breeding of sheep.
Much has been done by provincial organizations and by private organizations more or less connected with governments to improve the dairy herds by breeding good stock. Much progress has been made in that direction, but not enough has been done I think with regard to improving our breeds of sheep.
As to the qualities of wool, I have tried to inform myself as well as I could through Canadians or foreigners who are engaged in the industry, and I have been told-I do not give it as a fact myself because I am not an expert-that in order to produce certain qualities of woollen goods we still have to import foreign goods and that in exchange we export raw wool of a coarser quality. Whether in those parts of British Columbia, to which the hon. member for Yale has alluded, it is possible to raise the finest grades of sheep that give alpaca wool, for instance, I do not know, but of course my hon. friends from that part of the country know. As far as eastern Canada is concerned I do not think that either our climate or our soil is favourable to the raising
Canadian Wool Industry

of these finer breeds of sheep. Therefore we must consider the problem from the viewpoint of the whole of Canada, and for that reason I do not think that Canada can become a wool producing country to the same degree as Australia or New Zealand or India. Nevertheless something should be done.
There are various means at the disposal of both the federal and the provincial authorities which would meet the object of hon. gentlemen who are supporting this resolution, without resorting to that old and somewhat worn-out remedy of raising the tariff. I do not think it is necessary to raise the tariff; to do that would have a greater effect than the hon. member for Yale believes. We have already experienced the effects of the tariff. It is all very well to make calculations of the amount of duty actually levied on the quantity of wool that enters into the making of a suit of clothes, but as my hon. friend knows, by the time the raw article has been imported, manipulated and turned into manufactured goods, the amount of duty is trebled and quintupled and very often multiplied ten times for the benefit of the manufacturer or the tradesman, so that the consumer really pays more than the actual amount of the duty levied upon a certain portion of material entering into a manufactured article.
But I do not want to bring up again the whole question of protection. As I have stated frequently in the house, I have no bias on that question; I may say-cynically perhaps -that I have no principles on the question. I do not believe in the creed of protection or in the creed of free trade, but I do believe that in these days, considering the interests of Canada as a whole, more or less interwoven as they are with the interests of other countries, and considering the necessities of trade, the government should hesitate before applying the crude remedy of raising the tariff every time there is same complaint by the producer of an agricultural or manufactured product. This question should be studied more thoroughly. I understand that the National Research Council has made a study with regard to the quality of wools, to which the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) made reference. I suppose their conclusions will bring some light on that one aspect of the question, as to the varieties of wool and the possibility of producing in Canada the finest quality of wool which is required for the finest articles. In that connection, however, hon. gentlemen must bear in mind the great change which has taken place in-shall I say?-the fancies of the people. In the old days, for example, the general demand was for wool, pure woollen goods both for undergarments

and for outside clothing, even for dresses. Well, I suppose the ladies are largely responsible for the change in our habits, because from day to day and from year to year they have been looking constantly for lighter and lighter articles, until they dress up, or rather dress down, even in winter to such an extent that the woollen industry has suffered largely through these changes in fashion. Even some men believe it is more healthy to wear a much lesser proportion of woollen undergarments than they did in the old days. I am one of the oldtimers; I still stick to wool, but it has become very difficult to get the real woollen articles .manufactured in Canada. I may tell the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryck-man) that every time I go to the other side I buy a shirt or two in England or France in order to be sure that I get a woollen shirt, because you cannot get them in Canada. The 'article which is sold in Canada as woollen is loot woollen, although there is some portion bf wool in it. So that is another aspect of the question.
Encouragement should be given to the breeder to raise better stock, by way of premiums or some other means which could be discussed between the federal and the provincial authorities, and the manufacturers also should be induced to make greater use of wool. My good friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) could make use of his fine spirit of .propaganda, and issue, not in any luxurious way, but in a practical way, not a creed, but some sound advice to the public of Canada to make use of an article which is suited to our climate. We are not living in Africa or in the tropics. We live in a cold climate, where woollen goods are a necessity, I consider. A good many of the illnesses that are going around among both sexes are due largely, although there are other causes, .to the fact that we have discarded the good woollen shirt and the good woollen under and upper garments.
I wish to direct my next few remarks to the discouragement of the small industries by large manufacturers. Without applying my remarks to any particular constituency or geographical circle, may I say that in the old days in the province of Ontario, the maritime provinces and most certainly in the province of Quebec, there were small woollen industries producing articles for local consumption. In my own constituency, for example, most of the goods used in the shanties by lumberjacks were made in the surrounding country. The manufacture of those woollens gave work to the people in the villages; many women were enabled to stay at home and work on these products, in that way fulfilling at once their

Canadian Wool Industry
social duties as mothers of families or daughters assisting their mothers, and helping a local trade.
What has been the course pursued by the large manufacturers? They have discouraged and hewn down the small factories. In my constituency the father of a family, an industrious man, thought he would be helping himself, his family and his community by establishing a small woollen industry. He purchased nothing but wool grown in the community, the work was performed by his sons and daughters and the cost of production was reduced to a minimum; but what happened? The minute he began to expand his trade and sell some of his articles in Montreal and Toronto he was immediately boycotted by the representatives of all the large factories. As a result his trade was ruined.
The successful endeavours of large monopolized industries to kill small local industries apply not only to wool but to many other commodities. If there is a desire to encourage the farmer to raise the proper kind of sheep to produce the best grade of wool there must be an endeavour to place at his disposal at the nearest possible point a small factory which will purchase his wool at a fair price and will not cut down the rate under the pretence that a large industry, bejng capable of purchasing in bulk quantities and importing from foreign countries, cannot afford to pay large prices to small farmers. They may urge the excuse that the small producer does not clean his wool properly. In my view it would be a very simple matter for manufacturers with good will in their hearts to teach the farmers the best manner in which to prepare their wool, so that uniformity, quality and cleanliness of product might be the result.
I have no intention of dealing at length with this subject, but wish simply to associate myself with the desire of the hon. member who sponsors this resolution. I suggest, however, in the most friendly spirit that I do not think the remedy proposed is quite sufficient, and in my view it would not have the result he anticipates.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with this resolution, for three principal reasons. First, I am in favour of the protection of every sound industry in Canada, basic and manufacturing; second, because I represent a district very largely concerned with the raising of sheep and the production of wool; and, third, because of the loss to Canada of the woollen industry in general.
It is difficult for me to conceive of any industry which should be more typically Canadian, from the point of the original product to that of the very highest manufacturing, than the woollen industry. All across Canada there are areas ideally suited to the raising of sheep. Regardless of what may have been said I contend we live in a country where woollen goods are required, and everything that can be done should be done to foster our woollen industry. The question at once arises: Why has the industry, surrounded as it has been by every natural condition which should tend towards its development, languished? The answer is simply this: In the woollen industry, as in almost every other industry, no one in Canada has been able to [DOT]tell from year to year what was going to happen to the particular line of manufacturing in which he was engaged. For a short time there would be a protective tariff and at another period it would be taken away. The vacillating policy which was pursued has made it impossible for the man raising sheep to know what was going to happen in one, two, three or four years.
One or two questions have been raised with regard to the industry in general. An hon. member has asked why we export wool, and another has asked why we are importing it. We ask ourselves why we should export any portion of our wool and at the same time be importing the same product. The answer has been that our exports are of qualities not suitable for manufacture in Canada. Less than a year ago it was my privilege to attend a conference of wool growers and sheep raisers from different parts of Canada, and at that meeting I heard the reasons why we are exporting wool and, at the same time, importing. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Stewart) mentioned this afternoon the name of Mr. Rosamond of Almonte, a manufacturer of woollens who uses, very largely, Canadian wool. He said to that conference, "We manufacturers are anxious to use one hundred per cent Canadian wool, but we cannot get it. First, there is not sufficient wool produced for the present general requirements, and second, the industiy has been in such an unstable condition that it has not been possible to develop the type of industrial organization to take Canadian wool, and bring it to a point where it would be suitable for the manufacture of all classes of goods produced in Canadian woollen plants." It was pointed out at that conference that there was no combing or carding industry in Canada; consequently Canadian wool had to be sent out of the country for processing. So far as I know the same wool may come back in manufactured form. The statement was made that if there
Canadian Wool Industry

was an assurance of continuous and reasonable protection for the woollen industry, both producer and manufacturer, it would be possible to build in Canada that high type Of manufacturing plant capable of receiving the fleeces from Canadian producers and converting them into high grade woollens required by the most exacting manufacturers.
The statement has been made that Canadian manufacturers have dictated the extent of protection that the wool producer should receive. I know nothing about that, but I was told at the conference, composed partly of wool growers and sheep raisers, that a tariff doubling or trebling the price of Canadian wool to the manufacturer would be satisfactory. The manufacturers said they would continue to purchase Canadian wool in large quantities. In passing may I add that the grading of wool has added largely to the security of the manufacturer buying the raw product. Under present conditions he is in a position to secure any grade for which he may ask. Those manufacturers pointed out that even if the price of wool were doubled or trebled the cost of the raw product would be but a small item as compared with the cost of the finished article. To illustrate, one of the delegates said that the actual cost of the raw wool in the suit of any delegate present would represent only about twenty-five cents of the whole cost of the suit.
It may be said that although the woollen industry is languishing every other industry is in a similar plight. That may be true, but it is no reason why some attempt should not be made to stabilize this industry, indigenous as it is to almost every province of Canada, particularly the west and some areas in Ontario and Quebec. I may say that in the district I represent the area devoted to sheep raising could take care of all the sheep in Canada, if they were raised in the intensive way in which they raise sheep not only in England and Scotland, but also in Australia and New Zealand. That is an illustration of what may be possible.
This afternoon my hon. friend from East Calgary (Mr. Stanley) raised the point of developing industry to its highest point in Alberta. Nothing that the hon. gentleman said or could say was more pertinent than that statement. Anyone who has had the privilege of going through the province and seeing its possibilities-power, fuel, oil, with the tremendous areas available for sheep raising-must reach the conclusion that under any plan of reasonable encouragement Alberta should be the home not only for the raising of sheep, but also for the manufacture of

woollen goods for at least all the western part of the dominion.
I wish to associate myself with this resolution, Mr. Speaker, and to urge on the government, as strongly as I possibly can, favourable consideration of its subject matter, which has been supported so adequately by members on this side of the house.


Mr. W. D. COWAN (Long Lake):: Mr. Speaker, the facts with regard to the subject matter of the resolution have been presented by the mover and the seconder so convincingly that iit becomes unnecessary for me to speak at any great length. There is one phase of the resolution to which I wish to draw the attention of the house. I fancy our friends across the way, particularly those from my province, have already received copies of this resolution and realize that it is a straight, clear cut, fullblooded, definite declaration in favour of protection of a branch of farming in order to develop agricultural industry. Judging by the silence of hon. members opposite they have swallowed the whole thing, for we have not had a word from them throughout the afternoon or this evening.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: We have not had a chance.


Walter Davy Cowan: You wait until we are all through; that is the coward's game. I have been waiting for the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) to declare his views on this resolution, but he has sat in his seat like a dummy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Davy Cowan: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a clear cut, definite, full-blooded declaration in favour of protection. Can you imagine such a resolution as that coming from the province of Saskatchewan? Imagine it! Ten years ago we out there were branded as ready for the asylum if we dared to suggest protection. Here we are to-day with this declaration asking the house to do something, not only for Saskatchewan but for the whole of Canada. For this is not a sectional proposal, it is national in its scope. The adoption of this resolution will put money into the pockets of every farmer in Canada who goes in for the raising of sheep.


Edward James Young: Oh, oh.


Walter Davy Cowan: My hon. friend from Weyburn laughs. I dare him right now to stand up and oppose the resolution, and then go back to Weyburn.

Canadian Wool Industry


Edward James Young: I will do it.


Walter Davy Cowan: You have
either to swallow your principles or oppose this resolution. The scene has changed out there entirely.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And it will change again.


Walter Davy Cowan: We of the
Tory party out in Saskatchewan as far as organization and results are concerned have put it all over you. You have no possible chance of ever winning out there again, and we propose to make use of our opportunity and give the benefit of the tariff to every corner of this dominion. Those people state in this resolution that they are in favour of a clear cut, definite policy of protection for every industry that can be developed in the dominion, and for the protection of industry in all its branches. We hear it constantly stated in this house that agriculture cannot be protected. But who knows better than the farmer himself as to this? I fancy the farmer knows.	j :


Edward James Young: He knows now.


Mr. COWAN (I.ong Lake):: Yes. My friend need go back only a short time when in the Hotel Saskatchewan, Regina, seven hundred representatives foregathered from all over the province, presumably all free traders, and passed unanimously a resolution in favour of a duty on butter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Walter Davy Cowan: You may
laugh, but I tell you they are doing it yet. Now the Saskatchewan Sheep Breeders' Association have passed a resolution, and this is the concluding paragraph:
Therefore be it resolved that we respectfully urge upon the government of Canada that the sheep breeding industry be encouraged and the wool growing business be protected by the enactment of a protective tariff on wool equal to the tariff on woollen yarns and semi-manufactured cloth.
My hon. friend is a farmer. Well, here is a whole bunch of six or seven hundred farmers. They have laid down a sort of feather tick so they can fall on it and not get hurt. We ask that this resolution be enacted so that the raw wool industry of Canada may be fully protected.
You say that the Conservative party has really gobbled up the province of Saskatchewan, and that this is probably a sort of political dodge. I have heard that suggestion before. To safeguard myself against anything 41761-27
of that kind, I wrote the secretary of the Sheep Breeders' Association and asked him to send me a copy of the resolution. I know the secretary very well; he and I are good personal friends. I refer ito Mr. J. G. Robertson. You ask: Who is Mr. J. G. Robertson? I tell you he is live stock commissioner for Saskatchewan under the provincial government. That sounds political, you say. It does. But he was appointed live stock commissioner by the late Liberal government and has been continued in office by the present government, although he is the rankest Grit in the province. He sent this resolution to me and asked my support for it. So you see the resolution is not political at all, it simply means that a lot of Liberals are not less Liberals by passing this resolution; they have simply acquired a lot more sense.
We ask for the imposition of a duty on wool because we believe it is necessary to the industry. The member for Maple Creek (Mr. Swanston) told you that Saskatchewan is a splendid country for raising sheep. So it is. All the country south from Maple Creek to Willow Bunch is splendid for the raising of sheep. But it is not the only part of Canada suitable for sheep raising. I think I know Canada fairly well from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I do not know of one place in the whole Dominion where sheep raising is not natural. It is a natural industry. When I was in old Ontario long years ago, milking cows and attending to horses and doing all the work that everyone does on a farm, the raising of sheep was part of our activities. It can be made a profitable industry to-day. A report from the dean of the University of Saskatchewan declares that sheep raising is profitable. Indeed, it is the only really profitable part of the industry of agriculture that I know of to-day. Why not let us take hold of this industry and build it up for the farmers of the country?
I represent a rural constituency 125 miles by 110 miles, and in some parts of that constituency the farmers raise a great many sheep. In one part of the riding, where farmers were lured by the prospects of a railway, they are raising sheep to-day 25 and 30 miles from transportation. The farmers, of course, can always kill a sheep when they need meat, but so far they have not been able to get any advantage from their wool. They have to shear the sheep but they do nothing with the wool. Where is it? It is lying in the sheds, you will find tons of wool rotting in the backyards simply because it does not pay the farmers to take it 20 or 30 miles by truck or wagon to the railway and then pay railway

Canadian Wool Industry

charges. A reasonable amount of protection would stimulate the industry, and I therefore gladly associate myself with the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Swanston) who has moved this resolution. The hon. gentleman was brought up on a farm and he knows the industry from beginning to end; he knows the possibilities there are in wool producing. I am therefore very glad indeed to support his resolution and I hope my hon. friend from Weyburn (Mr. Young) will tell me whether or not he is in favour of it.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am not going to prolong this discussion but there are one or two observations which I wish to make, after listening with a good deal of interest to the debate thus far. Let us see what the resolution says:.
That is the opinion of this house, it is expedient that the government of the Dominion of Canada place a duty on raw wool that would reasonably protect the Canadian wool growers.
I take it that the proposed duty on wool coming into this country is purely for the benefit of the wool growers. We all know that the woollen industry, so far as the manufacturing end is concerned, is pretty well protected; it is well taken care of. I have listened with a good deal of interest to my hon. friend from Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), who gave figures in regard to the imports of wool into Canada, and also in regard to exports. If I caught his remarks correctly, he said that we imported last year 11,358,000 pounds of raw wool and exported 5,000,000 pounds. Now, let me say to my hon. friend from Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) that I have come to certain conclusions in regard to this resolution, and when I have stated those conclusions I do not wish him to get the impression that he has converted me in any way, because he has not. I have arrived at my conclusions in a different way from hon. gentlemen across the floor. The riding I have the honour to represent in this house is largely a rural constituency engaged in mixed farming. The sheep industry is a part of its agricultural operations, and the representations that I have received from the farmers there, no matter to what political party they belong, are all the same. They are unanimous in this view, that the present government which came into power in 1930 has done absolutely nothing in their interests, nothing to promote their prosperity. Agriculture in this country is going down, and if the imposition of a duty on raw wool will help it I am inclined to support the resolution. Wool is something that we can produce. I am not very familiar with the industry as a whole but I have heard 
it said that there are certain qualities of wool that are not produced in this country- qualities suitable for certain classes of woollen goods. It is necessary, so I am told, to import these varieties. Apart from that, however, if the imposition of a duty on raw wool will help the industry 1 am inclined to favour the resolution. It may stimulate the sheep industry and the production of wool and provide the farmers of the country-and I am speaking particularly for my part of Ontario-with a market at a price that will give them a profit. There is not a single solitary article produced on the farm to-day which the farmer can sell at a profit. The price he is receiving is below the cost of production, and we should do everything we can to stimulate the industry. If agriculture does not prosper nobody in this country will prosper at all. It is all very well to talk about tariffs, and you can raise tariffs as high as you like for the manufacturers; but if the farmer has no purchasing power these tariffs are useless.
As I have said, I have arrived at my conclusions in a different way from my hon. friends across the house, and I am inclined to support the resolution. For heaven's sake let us try to do something for the farmer. I repeat, this government has done nothing to stimulate the great basic industry of the country, agriculture. We need not go further than the estimates which have been brought down. There, Mr. Speaker, you will find that the estimates for this great industry for the next year are some 83,300,000 less than they were last year. If there is any industry in connection with which the estimates should not be cut down, even in this time of stress and strain, it is agriculture. I will support this resolution and give the government of the day a chance to show that they will attempt at least to do something for the farmer. I sincerely hope that if a duty is imposed on raw wool coming into the country the manufacturers will not attempt to raise their prices. If they do it will be only a farce. However,
I take a chance on that and support the resolution.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I
regret that I find myself in complete disagreement with my hon. friend (Mr. Sanderson), who has just concluded his short address.
I shall have to do to him what Premier Henry did to me in the Ontario legislature the other day, I shall have to take him out in the front yard and spank him. I agree with the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) that this resolution involves a clear cut declaration of policy; therefore there should be no fear with regard to the outcome of the vote. I

Canadian Wool Industry
know that my hon. friends across the way always have been true to a false policy, and I anticipate that they always will be; but I do not like to see them pulling the wool over the eyes of hon. members on this side, especially in a debate on the wool question.
I should like to make passing reference to the speech delivered this afternoon by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin- (Mr. Irvine). I have followed his career for a number of years, the first time I heard him speak being back in 1921. At that time he was denouncing the evils of protection, but apparently he has been partly converted. At the present time he does not seem to know whether he is coming or going; his speech started nowhere and ended very much in the same place. After listening to his speech one of his colleagues recalled to my memory an occasion when I followed him in this house a few years ago, after he had delivered a similar address. At that time I said he was very much like the negro who was going through a deep wood during a thunderstorm. The negro kept saying: "Good Lord, good Devil, good Lord, good Devil;" he did not know into whose hands he was going to fall.
I know where I am going to stand; I am going to stand consistently by a policy of low tariff. I do not think anything will be gained by applying further tariff protection to the woollen industry. I represent a constituency which is at least half rural and I have the interests of the farmer at heart just as much as any hon. member in this house. Let us look at this thing in a general way. We all know that the sheep population of practically every country is falling off. There must be some reason: one reason is that we are changing our mode of attire. We know that wool consumption has not increased along with the population of the world. I suggest to the hon. member for Long Lake, who I understand is the Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan, that if he is sincere in this matter he should have his organization use woollen instead of cotton sheets. As a matter of fact I would forgive him if he came down here next year dressed like Mahatma Ghandi. We know that as far as the average man is concerned he subscribes to the advice of advanced science and believes that by wearing lighter apparel it will be conducive to better health. We know that as far as the female of the species is concerned in the wearing of woollen goods, the bathing suit is the last stand and there is not much left there.


An hon. MEMBER:: Explain.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Not only is consumption falling off, but as far as our country is concerned we are not producing the right kind of material to make the finer classes of woollen goods. The National Research Council has been endeavouring to evolve a method of producing a better grade of wool, but climatic conditions are against us. No act of this parliament can change our climatic conditions. The only way we could produce a class of wool fine enough for certain manufactured products would be to grow 'our sheep under glass. If the principle of falsely bolstering up protection is right, let us follow it right through and provide a tariff high enough to permit us to grow our sheep under glass. That would assist the glass industry.
We recall the arguments which emanated from the other side of the house, and I regret to say from this side as well, during the debate on the New Zealand treaty. Our hon. friends 6aiid that all we had to do was to put up the tariff sufficiently high to increase the production of butter in order to make prosperity for the dairyman. However, other economic factors entered into the situation just as they have in connection with the wool producers. As I said, the world consumption of woollen goods has fallen off and we cannot produce in this country a salable product for export. The same applied to butter, but we did not consider that and we foolishly went ahead and put a prohibitive tariff on the importation of New Zealand butter. During the last campaign I spoke in the riding of the hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Boyes). At that time I knew he was absolutely sincere in believing that the high tariff which would prohibit the import of New Zealand butter would contain remedial measures so far as the dairyman was concerned. However, we could not produce a product salable on the export market. Our cheese rated 96 per cent No. 1; our butter rated 70 per cent No. 1, and in the interests of good business naturally we sold our surplus in the form of cheese. Our cheese commanded a premium of 3 cents per pound on the Liverpool market and it was good business for us to continue to sell our surplus in that manner. But then came the false propaganda of our Conservative friends, as a result of which the importation of New Zealand butter was stopped. What was the further result? The New Zealander did not throw his product in the sea; he made it into cheese and sold that cheese in Liverpool in competition with ours. The result of the new competition was a lower price; that price was reflected in Canada and we had the anomaly of cheese at 12 cents per pound and butter at 37 cents per pound. That condition did not
Canadian Wool Industry

obtain for very long and we then turned to an increased butter production, which production was increased some 36,000,000 pounds.
This is the very thing which our friends advocate as being in the best interests of the dairy producer of Canada. At that time I pointed out that the worst thing which could happen would be for us to go on the export market with an unsalable butter product. We are now trying to sell butter which grades only 70 per cent, No. 1, and naturally we have to take an abnormally low price. We enjoyed a premium on the British market for our cheese; we had practically no competition, but the New Zealander entered the market and Doctor Ruddick, dairy commissioner, stated a short time ago that New Zealand practically had captured our market in England because we had failed to maintain a continuity of supply. We adopted the same policy which we are being asked to adopt in connection with wool; we put ourselves on an export basis with a product which was not salable. I do not think there is one intelligent member across the way who advocated that policy two years ago but who will agree that it has had a very adverse effect upon the dairy industry.
We have the same situation in connection with wool. If we stimulate the production of wool beyond the consumptive capacity of Canada, then we will be going into the export market with an unsalable product.


Mr. BO YES:: The New Zealand treaty was in effect many years under the previous government, and the cancellation on May 1 did not come into effect until October 1. During that period other countries shipped into Canada such large quantities of butter, which at that time was protected, that-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Mr. BOYES:: Our butter industry received a serious blow at that particular time.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: There has been such a
noise in this part of the chamber that I could not hear my hon. friend. I suggest that he make a speech after I finish.
I am dealing with the question of producing a surplus of products which is not salable on the markets of the world. I am sorry the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott) is not in his place, as I would have liked to point out to him another case of falsely stimulated production. A great effort was made in southern Ontario to defeat me during the last elections. I know of the propaganda that was carried on among the bean growers there. They were told that all that was needed to bring prosperity was a tariff of $1.25 on beans. 
That idea was presented to the farmer. Finally an indignation meeting was held in the riding of Elgin and on that occasion I tried to reason with about 800 men who attended, endeavouring to point out to them that if they produced an exportable surplus of their product, they could not sell on the export market because they had not the proper grades and the beans had too much moisture content. I told them that if they increased the production beyond the consumption capacity of Canada, the price of beans would be less than $1 a bushel. The tariff was applied; the production was doubled and the result was that they had a surplus of 1,500,000 bushels that would not sell on the export market. The consequence was that the price of beans, which had stood at S3, dropped down to $1 a bushel, causing a state of chaos in the bean industry. The producers, however, came back for more of the hair of the dog that bit them; they came to the Prime Minister and he gave them a dumping duty and they again increased their production. The result is that this year they are carrying 1,000,000 bushels of beans in their granaries and the price has dropped to about forty-five cents a bushel.
The same thing may be said about any other product you like to name. Although the tobacco manufacturers told the producers there was too great a production and that they could not consume it, the producers came to the government asking for an increase in the tariff. For what purpose? In order to produce more, although the market will not absorb the present production. It is a time we called a halt to this uneconomic state of affairs. Production is increasing at the rate of 20 per cent due to the policy advocated in this very resolution, while the world population is increasing at the rate of only 5 per cent. That is why we have this state of chaos at the present time. We will yet go through a process of elimination and the country with too high a cost of production will be put out of business.
The other day we had a debate on the bonus on wheat. That bonus was given obviously for the purpose of stimulating the production of wheat. We know at the present time we have a world surplus of wheat. If it is a sound policy for us to dip into the public treasury to stimulate the production of wheat, it follows it is good policy for every other country to do likewise. If as a result of the policy endorsed by this government every country adapts the same idea, and instead of a 500,000,000 bushel surplus we have a 1,000,000,000 bushel surplus, is that going to help the basic producer? It certainly will not.

Canadian Wool Industry
I believe the farmers of southern Ontario are thoroughly convinced they cannot exploit anybody else and that is the whole purpose of dangling the protection bait before the farmers, telling them: You vote for us and we will give you a tariff. They have had a fine example of the policy of the government and they are thoroughly sick of it.
As regards the men to whom the government are giving special privileges, I can refer to the gasoline industry which to-day is exploiting the basic producer. The agricultural machinery industry, as a result of tariff concessions granted recently, has increased the price of repairs on machinery. I could refer to anything else you want to name. If you want to do something for the farmers, stop this exploitation that is talcing place at the present time. I have under my hand some letters I received to-day from southern Ontario. One man tells me that as a result of the policies of this government which have brought about trade restriction, which have lost markets for him, and which have increased the cost of everything he has to buy, so far as production is concerned the only thing he can get at to-day is his poor hired help. He says that in his neighbourhood at present married men are working for $25 a month and they are trying to maintain at the proper standard of living a family of six or seven. Can you picture a condition of that kind-a married man, in some cases where the wife has to help with the milking morning and night and the man has to feed and clothe seven children and send them to school? Do the government think they are helping that man by adding to his burden an increased cost of living? We are on the wrong track completely and the sooner we reverse the processes of all governments and have some regard for the fundamental law of supply and demand, for the cost of production and for the masses to-day who are being exploited, the sooner we shall make this world a better place in which to live.


Mr. H. A. MULLINS (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I find myself in accord with the sheep raisers. I have been engaged in the live stock industry for half a century. It is well known that the sheep men and the cattle men never agree on the ranges; they have quarrelled since the beginning of time; but in this case, when I find the raw product going out of the country to be fabricated elsewhere, I have to be in accord with this resolution. I endorse the resolution because the sheep raising industry has practically petered out. The sheep brought in from Montana under the policy pursued by my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) were sold at ridiculously high prices to many settlers in my constituency; they were sold at $14 a head when they were worth only $6, and this resolution is intended to help those men to get out of the hole in which they found themselves by being loaded with sheep at such exceedingly high prices. These sheep were brought from Montana into western Canada with the idea of eradicating the weeds from the farms that the wheat growers had been working. I do not want to tackle the wheat grower again, but by mining the soil he had been growing nothing but weeds and it was for the eradication of those weeds that the idea was formed of bringing in the sheep.
I want to have it understood that I am in favour of this resolution; I wish to have our raw products manufactured at home. I do not want to see them leaving our shores to be fabricated in other countries. It would make one's blood run cold to stand on the platform in the Winnipeg, Toronto and other Canadian stockyards and see the growing yearly steers going out of the country to be made into meat products in the United States, the beef being shipped back to Canada and used in some of the principal hotels. I do not want to see that. I am in favour of any measure on this side of the house that will keep the raw products of Canada in Canada and have them fabricated in this country. Therefore I associate myself with the resolution.


John Vallance: How does the hon. member propose to keep the raw material in by the application of the tariff?


Henry Alfred Mullins: I have lived in Canada for sixty-two years; I have lived under every government from Macdonald down to the present Prime Minister, and every time there was a fair tariff, not an exploiting one, this country has prospered. My hon. friend opposite had a tariff. What about the countervailing duties they were going to impose? They had a tariff but they camouflaged it. They tried to make the people believe: Oh, we are free traders. Why, there is not a Cob-denite or John Bright amongst my hon. friends opposite, not even the hon. member for Wey-bum (Mr. Young).


Edward James Young: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friends opposite for the past two or three years have been carrying on a campaign urging people to buy made in Canada goods. It is interesting from this side of the house to watch the development of that idea. At first the cry was: Buy goods made
Canadian Wool Industry

in your own country; buy goods made in Canada. This met with a measure of success. Now it has gone one step further and the cry is:	Buy goods made in your own province.
This afternoon I listened to the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Stanley) speaking to this resolution. His chief concern seemed to be to build up a woollen industry, not in Canada, but in Alberta. What he wants really is interprovincial tariffs to shut out from Alberta the competition of woollen producers in the east. That same policy of buy-in-your-own-province has taken hold in Saskatchewan. The friends of my hon. friends opposite are in power there and they are preaching "Buy goods made only in your own province." Today they are taking advantage of the plight in which the farmer finds himself to force him, through the Saskatchewan Relief Commission, to burn only Saskatchewan coal whether his stoves are suitable for it or not. I wonder how my hon. friend from Lethbridge (Mr. Stewart) who is supporting this resolution likes that. How do my hon. friends like the policy of buy home made goods carried a step further when it is confined to their own province? The next logical step in this policy of theirs would be: Buy only goods produced in your own family. When we reach that stage it is only a step to Gandhi and the spinning wheel, and if they could bring us to that pass , they would lower the standard of living in this country to what it is in India.
In September, 1930, a special session of this house was called for the purpose of raising tariffs. That session was brought to a speedy close because the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) wanted to get to the Imperial conference in England, an imperial conference called for the purpose of promoting inter-empire trade. One of the first things we did during the short session was to raise the duty on New Zealand butter, and the very day we did it the Prime Minister of New Zealand sat on the floor of this house and watched it done. He went away from here in rather an unfriendly mood. The Imperial conference proved to be a fiasco.


Mr. DURANLEAU:: How do you know
that the Prime Minister of New Zealand went away in an unfriendly mood?


Edward James Young: By his action in retaliating
when he got back to New Zealand. He shut out Canadian goods. The Imperial conference held in London to promote empire trade failed. Why? Primarily because our country made preparations for that conference by raising tariffs against Great Britain. Next summer, in this chamber probably, another

conference for the same purpose, to promote empire trade, is to be held. I wonder if this resolution is a preliminary step to raising the duty on Australian and New Zealand wool so that we can go into that conference and- W'hat? Promote empire trade, or make the conference another failure as was the last one?


James Dew Chaplin: What does the hon. member mean by raising the duty? Is there a duty now?


Edward James Young: Putting a duty on, then.


John Vallance: The duty was wiped
out by this government by order in council.


Edward James Young: It is rather disappointing to think that the farmers, after all the experience they have had in the last two years, would support a resolution of this nature, disappointing to think that farmers could be made to believe that their products can be protected. We were told two years ago that if the farmers would vote for a higher duty on butter they would get a better price. The treaty rate on butter was one cent a pound. It was raised under the general tariff to fourteen cents and under the preferential to eight cents. Now the Australian rate is five cents. Did that help the price of butter? When the duty was one cent a pound butter was selling for 38 cents a pound in Montreal. With the lowest rate of duty, now in effect five cents a pound, butter is now selling at 22 cents a pound in Montreal.


James Dew Chaplin: Did the change in duty
lower the price?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: It certainly helped.


Edward James Young: Did it raise the price? My hon. friends told the farmers that it would raise the price.


James Dew Chaplin: The hon. member for
West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) said that the change in duty lowered the price.


Edward James Young: My hon. friends opposite
promised to raise the price by means of a duty, which they utterly failed to do. The same thing happened with eggs. The duty on eggs coming in from the United States was three cents. My hon. friends opposite told the farmers that they were not getting a high enough price for their eggs because the duty was not high enough. They were returned to power and raised the duty to ten cents, and what was the result? Eggs two years ago in January were selling in the west for 40 cents a dozen. When I left home this year they

Canadian Wool Industry
were selling for ten cents a dozen, and that is fresh laid eggs. Did the duty raise the price? No. Did it hold the price up, did it prevent it from going down? No. Then they put a duty of thirty cents a bushel on wheat. What for? To shut out less than one million of bushels of a certain kind of wheat brought in for special purpose. When they did that the price of wheat was in the neighbourhood of 90 cents a bushel; to-day it is in the neighbourhood of 60 or 70 cents. Again I ask, did the duty hold up the price? Again it failed.
My hon. friend from Lethbridge mentioned to-day the case of mutton. A duty was put on mutton last year to hold up the price. What happened? Mutton on his own admission is lower to-day than it was then. Now since the tariff has failed to hold up the price of butter, since it failed to hold up the price of eggs, since it failed to hold up the price of wheat, since it failed to hold up the price of mutton, since it failed to hold up the price of beans since it has failed to hold up the price of practically everything on which it has been applied of the products which the farmer has to sell, what reason have we to think that a tariff of 34 cents or any other rate will hold1 up the price of wool?


Robert James Manion: Under these circumstances what is the objection to a tariff on manufactured goods?


Edward James Young: I will explain that in a
moment.


Robert James Manion: Why not now?


Edward James Young: Wherever you have an exportable surplus of a staple commodity, and that surplus is sold in the world's market, the world price fixes the price of the domestic article, but wherever you have a commodity that can be sold within a sheltered market with outside competition shut out, as is the case with manufactured goods, then the seller of those goods is in a position to take advantage of the tariff to boost the price, as he does.
We were told this afternoon, and figures were quoted by hon. gentlemen opposite, that we export approximately five million pounds of raw wool. If you put a duty of 34 cents a pound on raw wool, what effect will it have on the price? Those five million pounds of export wool will be sold on the world's market, and the world price will determine the price that we will pay for wool in Canada. So the price will not advance one cent.
My hon. friends say that they will shut out the wool that is imported and supply the demand with the wool that we now export.
But they will not do that for the reason that it is not the same kind of wool. They told us that the Canadian woollen manufacturers have assured them that the Canadian wool is suitable for the fabrics they produce. So it is. But it is not suitable for the fabrics they do not produce, and that is the reason they do not produce them. Canadian wool is suitable for certain fabrics, but with all their enthusiasm for made in Canada goods I wonder how many of my hon. friends opposite would like to come into this chamber in a suit of homespun, made of all Canadian wool. I wonder how many would like to wear a suit of underwear made altogether of Canadian wool. Is there any difference between Canadian wool and other wool? Yes. It is not due to the breed of the sheep. It is due to our climate. Our climatic conditions are such that our sheep grow a wool which is suitable for certain purposes but not suitable for other purposes, and the wool we export is the surplus wool we have over and above our own requirements for the purpose for which that wool is suited. The wool we import is wool fhalt we require for making goods that cannot 'be made with our own wool.
Reference was made to the price we pay for this foreign wool, as compared with the price we receive for our own wool. I asked the hon. member who was speaking a question, and he said that we get the foreign wool cheaper. That is not the case. I have here the 1930 price of foreign and domestic wool. The price of western Canadian range wool was 16 cents a pound. That was the average price paid that year. The price for the cheapest kind of imported wool in the grease was 33 cents a pound, more than twice as much as the price of the domestic wool. This year the average price of imported wool in the grease is 20 cents a pound, and hon. gentlemen opposite have been telling us all day that the price of our Canadian wool is from 5 to 8 cents a pound. I ask this question:	Why does the Canadian woollen
manufacturer pay twice as much for imported wool as he would have to pay for Canadian wool? Why does he do that? Is it because he is prejudiced against the Canadian wool grower? Not at all; he is a practical business man. He pays a higher price for that wool because he requires it for his purposes, and no duty which can be placed on imported wool can force him to buy Canadian wool for purposes for which it is not suited.
Let us suppose that a duty is applied; what will happen? Either it will or it will not increase the price of wool. It it does not increase the price of raw wool to the farmer
Canadian Wool Industry

what good is it? If it increases the price of raw wool to the farmer it increases the price the manufacturer has to pay for his raw wool. What will the manufacturer do? He will be back to-morrow knocking at the door of parliament asking for a higher duty on finished woollen goods. How would the government refuse him?
What are the chief competitors of wool?- cotton, rayon, silk and other fabrics. If the government did anything to advance the price of wool they might tax it right off the backs of the people and force them to wear articles composed of other fabrics. I suggest we cannot help the woollen industry by increasing the price of woollen goods. England tried that in the seventeenth century. Because her sheep growers were most influential she was resolved at all costs to build up her woollen industry. She resorted to every conceivable device, such as import and export duties. She passed laws stating that all other fabrics such as silks and cottons imported into the country must be exported so that the people would be forced to wear woollen goods. She passed laws compelling people to be buried in woollen shrouds. What was the result? She failed utterly to build up her woollen industry; she forced the people to use cotton. So far did she carry out her attempt to protect the woollen industry that a continental observer in England wrote to this effect: "It is a felony in England to export wool; yet they who furnish all the world with wool have the least manufacturing of it among themselves." What happened? The English weavers who were denied the use of imported wool had to weave their cloth out of domestic wool? The French weavers who had the world from which to select were able to choose finer wool, produce a finer fabric which drove the English woollen goods out of every market in the world. At the same time the price of woollen goods in England rose so high that the people turned to the wearing of cotton, and the woollen industry which the government was trying to build up by artificial means was utterly ruined.
What is the remedy for the woollen situation to-day? We say that people are not wearing as much wool as they used to; that is true. The fact is however that Canadian wool is not to any great extent used in the manufacture of garments. Its use is confined chiefly to the making of blankets and other coarser woollen products. I should like to take some of my hon. friends opposite into some of the houses which are not heated with steam, and where the occupants are not quite

as comfortable as are my hon. friends, and show them how many of those people would like to have woollen blankets, but cannot afford them. How many people are sleeping between cotton blankets because they cannot afford wool? To create a larger market it is necessary to put woollen goods upon the market at a lower, rather than a higher price.


Frank Boyes: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few observations concerning the resolution before the house, with which I am in hearty accord. I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn) who is situated just to the south of my riding, and who stated that he is not in accord with this resolution. I should like also to refer to the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) whose riding is to the north of mine. It would seem that to some extent he has been converted and is falling in line with the Conservative party to the extent of allowing some protection on wool.


Frederick George Sanderson: My hon. friend need
not flatter himself in that regard; I am far from being converted to high protection.


Frank Boyes: At any rate my hon. friend
has gone some distance.


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not want my
hon. friend's congratulations at all.


Eccles James Gott: We could not congratulate
the hon. member on his London speech.


Frank Boyes: No, we could not. I do not desire further to take up the time of the house, but wish merely to repeat that I am heartily in accord with the resolution now before us to the effect that there should be a duty on wool. Undoubtedly some help to the producers would assist greatly.


John Livingstone Brown: Mr. Speaker,
the hon. members for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn) and Weyburn (Mr. Young) have expressed admirably the views I entertain, and I feel that there is no necessity for repetition. I should, however, like to refer to the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) who, I am glad to say, is now in his place and whose attitude was well described by the hon. member for West Elgin. I presume, however, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin attended the United Farmers of Alberta convention which passed the resolution read a short time ago.
I hope the attitude of the hon. member is not that taken by the Alberta farmers. At this time it would seem proper to read the :esolution to which I presume the hon. mem-

Canadian Wool Industry
ber for Wetaskiwin gave his assent. The resolution, with which I heartily agree, is as follows:
Whereas, the fiscal policy known as protection or a protective tariff which has been on trial in Canada for over fifty years since its inauguration in 1879, has belied every promise of its promoters, both then and since, and has utterly failed to promote the general well-being of the people of Canada and has developed instead a most pernicious maldistribution of our wealth, and is on this account immediately responsible for that disparity in market values as expressed in present day prices, which exists between what the farmer sells and what he buys, which disparity is one of the principal causes of the present industrial debacle and the general economic depression;
Be it therefore resolved, that the time has come for an immediate all round reduction in our custom duties to the intent that within a period of not less than five years every feature and constituent of this barbaric economic superstition be eliminated from the fiscal policy of our country.
I repeat; I presume the hon. member for Wetaskiwin gave his consent to that resolution?


William Irvine: The assumption is entirely
wrong.


John Livingstone Brown: Hearing the hon. member's speech I was reminded of the Irishman who was willing to sign the pledge, with certain exceptions-that he might indulge at a wedding, at a wake, at the market or a fair, or "when I think I need it". So it occurred to me that some people are strongly opposed to the principle of protection except when they think they need it. Hon. members opposite evidently are utterly unable to understand that those representing farmer constituencies should be opposed to this resolution. Listening to the arguments advanced in its support, I was taken back to my boyhood days. The first knowledge I had of political affairs was gained in the election of 1878. I remember we were hearing then the very same arguments for protection on wool that we are hearing to-day. Personally I am convinced the farmer is on the wrong track when he commits himself to the principle of protection. He may secure some immediate temporary advantage, but ultimately it will be to his disadvantage. Surely we have had abundant results to confirm that. If anything should warn the Canadian farmer of his danger, it is the experience of the farmer in the United States. He has been urged again and again to support the principle of high protection, and he has yielded. What is the condition of the American farmer to-day? Has he benefited because of his adherence to the principle of protection? No, his acceptance of that principle has been to his complete disadvantage.
I am satisfied that if the condition on the farm is to be what we want it to be we must seek the remedy along entirely different Lines; we must seek it along the lines of reducing the cost of production rather than increasing the price of the product that we have to sell, for in a general way that price is beyond our control. Surely we have had experience enough in the case of butter to show that a protective tariff in itself does not give the farmer the returns to which he is entitled. We have listened so frequently to the arguments from the other side of the house, that having seen those arguments so falsified one is amazed that they should be repeated to-day.
When addressing the house the other day I said I had a message that I wanted to deliver to the member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins).
I did not do so on that occasion because he was not present. I am going to deliver it to him now. I have received a letter from a friend of mine telling me that he had just sold a 10 gallon brimful can of table cream-the highest grade of cream-that tested 32 per cent butter fat, for which he received $2.85. Now, I should like to say to the member for Marquette, and to all those other members from the west who during the election campaign went around the country showing cream cheques-the member for Souris (Mr. Willis) was one; I think probably all the Conservatives in Manitoba did the same-I want to say to them that some of those 1930 cheques would look mighty good to-day.
Those who support this resolution are, I submit, proceeding along wrong lines. The only effect it can have if translated into practice is as was pointed out by the hon. members for West Elgin and Weyburn; and in spite of the inability of the member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) and other members opposite to understand that we who are interested in the prosperity of the farmer take the position we do, I am compelled, Mr. Speaker, to stand by the position I have always taken,-that the farmer is on the wrong track when he seeks to increase his profits by means of a protective tariff.


William Irvine: Will the hon. member kindly explain to the house and the country the reason why he did not reduce these tariffs in the way he wants them reduced when he had the opportunity?


John Livingstone Brown: I have no objection to
answering the question. I think any person' who has listened to any speeches I have made in the house during the last ten or eleven years will understand my position. I said again and again that I wanted to go further'
Canadian Wool Industry

than we ever yet have gone in the way of' reducing tariffs, but because I had not been able to get all -that I wanted in that direction was no reason why I should want to throw in my lot with those who want to raise tariffs.


An hon. MEMBER:: What did you get?


John Livingstone Brown: If you will look up Hansard of two or three years ago you will find that the then Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) put on Tecord a list of the tariff reductions that had been made in seven years, and it took fifteen pages of Hansard to record those reductions, in spite of the statement made by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine), that there is no difference between the two parties on that question. I think that is a sufficient answer to his question.


Mr. J. H. MYERS (Queens):: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to associate myself with this resolution. I am a practical farmer; that is the way I make my living. I am fairly welt acquainted with sheep, with cattle and with hogs and with every other line of agriculture that the farmers are attempting to carry on at the present time.
Farming has changed considerably in the last ten or fifteen years. I speak with reference to the maritime provinces, particularly my own province of Prince Edward Island, one of the counties of which I represent. At one time our chief agricultural industry on the island was the growing of hay and coarse grains for export to the cities of central Canada and to the different markets of the world. The motor car has changed all that; it has driven the horse off the streets of our cities and of every other city in the world. In a word, the motor car has supplanted the horse and has changed our transportation methods. Now we have to change too. Instead of attempting to put our hay and coarse, grains on the market in their raw state, I thought the best thing for us to do was to turn them into something that man could eat or wear, but I am getting very little encouragement in my line of business, especially from hon. members on the other side of the house.
With reference to the sheep industry, let me point out to the house that the sheep is one of the most important animals on the farm. It is good for three things: first, we can produce from its carcass the finest meat that you can put on a man's table; second, its fleece can be fabricated into cloth for garments; third, as an aid to the farmer in the eradication of weeds it is second to none amongst domestic animals on the farm. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, anything that can

be done by this house to increase the number of sheep in this dominion and, incidentally, the profits of those who are engaged in the raising of sheep, would be of substantial benefit to the Canadian people.
A great deal has been said about butter, and I notice that my hon. friends on the other side of the house always curl up a little bit when butter is mentioned. I do not wonder ait that because they rather slipped up on this question at one time. I am surprised that they even want to put it on their bread, it was so bad to them about July 28, 1930. But with reference to the butter situation as I see it, it is quite true that we are selling our butter to-day below cost of production; but we are selling below cost of production everything else produced on the farm. And we are no worse in that regard than the farmers of every other country, so far as I know. We are told by men engaged in other walks of life that they too are sharing in the hard times. The manufacturer of the very farm machinery that has been talked about to-night tells you that he cannot make a profit; indeed, he is not merely standing still but is going behind. That is what I have been told by the dealers with whom I have talked. But to come back to the question of butter, as I pointed out a moment ago, if we cannot market our raw material in its present state-hay, coarse grains and so on-what are we to do with it? My idea is that we must turn it into food and clothing for mankind. A year or two ago we were importing from New Zealand 40,000,000 pounds of butter in one year. To-day we have had to turn our attention to the making of butter ourselves. Now, I do not know what the duty did or did not do; I am not interested in that. But the fact is that this year we have increased our own Canadian make of butter by 30,000,000 pounds. And remember, I am talking from the standpoint of the farmer. If the Candian consumer had continued this year to eat New Zealand butter what would I have done with mine? It is true it is cheap, but would it not have been cheaper still? What could I have done with my butter if the Canadian consumer had continued using New Zealand butter? Perhaps my friends on the other side will take credit for the fact that they themselves were instrumental in shutting out New Zealand butter. I give them all credit. But when we see the same thing in connection with wool as we saw in regard to butter, I think our hon. friends opposite should be fair enough to support the resolution before the house.

Canadian Wool Industry


Mr. ROBERT McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: I have no doubt that all that has been said with regard to the troubles of our wool producers is true. Their condition is the same as that of every other agriculturist throughout the country. They cannot make anything out of their wool at the present prices, nor can the producers of any other farm products make a profit under present conditions and at present prices. But I am surprised indeed that even one of our friends opposite should venture at this time to bring in any resolution proposing a further tariff on agricultural products after the example we have had of what has happened. Some of my colleagues on this side have fully discussed the question of butter and eggs, and we are not forgetful that last year, when dealing with the duty on corn, we were told that the price of barley was going to be so enormously increased that we could keep out com coming from the Argentine for feed purposes, as the farmers would turn to barley as feed instead of corn.


Eccles James Gott: What duty was there on corn from the Argentine?


Robert McKenzie: Will you
please sit down? You will have your chance to speak if you wish to. We know what the result has been as regards the effect of the duty on corn. The price of barley is even yet below cost of production; the imposition of a duty on corn had no effect. As my hon. friend from Weyburn (Mr. Young) has said, the main trouble with the woollen industry to-day is not the need of a tariff, but the fact that rayon silk and similar fabrics are being used in place of wool products. In this resolution we are merely asked to give the patient, the farmer back on the prairie who is struggling to make ends meet, a little more of the medicine that made him sick. That is really what we are doing. In other words, it is just another move by a tariff-mad government to add a little more to the burdens of the farmers.
I am not going to deal with the question of a tariff on butter and eggs. Some of my colleagues, I must confess, have stolen most of the ammunition which I had prepared. There is, however, one question to which I will refer briefly, and that is the entirely different effect that tariffs have on the trade of the country. That has been shown quite clearly in the last year and a half since that short session of 1930 at which the tariff was raised, and my views are fully expressed in an editorial which I clipped from the Toronto Star of April 22, 1931. This is what they say with regard to the effect of a tariff:
Since the Bennett government introduced its high tariff legislation at the special session last autumn twenty-three countries have taken retaliatory tariff action against Canada. Belgium will, it is said, be the next. If, in half a year, one-third of all the countries with which this country has been carrying on her world trade have taken retaliatory tariff action against us most of the forty other countries with which we have been doing business will probably be getting back at us before the year is out.	.
There is a tendency in all countries to answer blow for blow in this tariff war.
I am opposed to any further imposition of a tariff on farm products, for this reason, that everything which the farmer produces is a drug on the market to-day, it matters not what it is, and this is due largely to tariffs, as this editorial states. We restrict the products of other countries by a high tariff and the result is that we cannot sell to tnose countries. I cannot support the resolution because to my mind it will have the same effect that tariffs have always had-it will increase the price of woollen clothing and other products made from wool.


Eccles James Gott: Will the hon. gentleman
answer a question? He referred to the imposition of a duty on Argentine corn. What duty was applied to Argentine corn?


Robert McKenzie: It would
be under the intermediate tariff; you can get it.


Eccles James Gott: I know what it is; I am
asking you to explain.


Robert McKenzie: The hon.
gentleman can get the information for himself.


Eccles James Gott: Why make statements you
cannot back up?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Mr. W. J. LOUCKS (Rosetown):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this resolution but I feel I must express my approval. It is rather hard for me to understand the opposition of agricultural members from Saskatchewan. I wonder if some of the hon. members of the opposition will not agree with me that one of the principal reasons in the drop of the price of our wool is the effect of the tariff put into force by the country to the south of us. That explains why the price of our wool went down. No hon. member, especially of the opposition, has referred to the agriculturists of Great Britain and what became of them because of the policy of free trade. I think all hon. members will be ready to acknowledge that it about wrecked the agriculturists of that country. The last
Canadian Wool Industry

elections demonstrated the results which the farmer of Great Britain had been obtaining through free trade.
I am rather surprised to hear hon. members declare that they never will endorse protection. The principle of tariffs was in force long before this government came into power. I would refer hon. members to Germany, France, Italy and those countries which put up tariffs amounting to as much as SI.80 per bushel against our wheat. I attended a meeting in my constituency and I was asked to explain why a tariff against wheat coming into Canada from the United States would be of any assistance in view of the fact that both countries were exporters of this product. I was very glad to have an opportunity of answering a question like that. If I remember rightly, in 1929 a tariff of 12 cents per bushel was in force against American wheat. For four or five months the Winnipeg market was leading by 21 cents per bushel, and I think the opposition will agree that a considerable amount of wheat was bootlegged into Canada to be sold on the Winnipeg market. There was an advantage in price even though both countries were exporters.
I feel sure that the hon. members of this house are in accord that something should be done to help the producers of wool. One hon. member has said that wheat has been a great boon to the farmer; I endorse that, but I do not know of any animal on the farm which gives a greater return than does the sheep.
In view of what has been said I have come to the conclusion that it is pretty hard to convince any man against his will, even though he may think as you do. It looks to me as though certain hon. members of the opposition feel that this policy is right, but it would be going against their will to give some benefit to the producers of sheep in western Canada.


Robert Weir: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very able and thorough presentations which have been made on this subject matter by the mover and seconder of the resolution, there is very little left to be said. It is not my intention to speak at any great length, as tariffs are not directly under my department.
I must admit that I admire one characteristic of hon. gentlemen opposite, that is the ability to speak with an apparent conviction based on a logic which they cannot really accept. Speaker^ after speaker, not only in this but in previous sessions, has risen in his place and inferred at least, if he has not made the definite statement, that the reduction in the price of butter, eggs and some other commodities has been due to the tariff. I would fMr. Loucks.]
like to see hon. gentlemen follow that logic one step further and apply it to the commodity with which we are dealing to-night. I believe I am safe in saying that the drop in the price of wool has been greater than that of any other agricultural commodity. The sheep industry of Canada has been practically at a standstill right from its inception. In 1871 the sheep population of Canada was in the neighbourhood of between three and four million head, and the present day population is about the same; there has been very little change or fluctuation throughout the sixty years.
The sheep ranchers and farmers of the Canadian west take second place to none. I met some of these men last summer in Lethbridge and I was very much impressed by their intelligence and the amount of care they had exercised in carrying on this industry. But in what condition do they find themselves to-day? On this side of the line the price received for wool in the grease is from 4 to 6 cents per pound, while the American farmer is receiving from 15 to 18 cents per pound for wool of a similar grade and character. Will any hon. member say that if the tariff in the United States was removed the price would remain where it is to-day? The tariff must have a bearing on the price of wool or it would not be where it is to-day.
In 1921 when the American government first put on anything like a fair tariff on wool only 49 per cent of the total wool consumption was domestic. The tariff was increased in 1930, up to which year there had been a continuous increase in the percentage of domestic wool, finally reaching 89 per cent. Figures are available only for eleven months in 1931, but they show a higher percentage of domestic wool being used in the total consumption than for any year during the last thirty years. It must be admitted that the tariff has kept up the price of wool in the United States and has also increased the percentage of domestic wool used in home consumption.
The sheep growers, who know whereof they speak, claim that they cannot continue in the industry should prices remain at their present levels. Is it worth our while to do something to keep alive this industry into which these men have put so much? Personally, I feel that it is. If they were not efficient it would be a different thing, but they are as efficient as the sheep farmers of any country in the world. I have no hesitation in stating that we should put forward every effort to keep this industry alive.

Canadian Wool Industry
The resolution asks that a tariff be placed on raw wool. That alone would not be sufficient to protect the wool industry. I feel that any tariff that will protect the wool industry must be on the whole schedule of wool from wool in the grease, wool scoured, wool tops, yarns and so forth. I therefore appreciate this opportunity to put myself on record as being in favour of the resolution.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, for reasons which will be obvious when my voice is heard in this chamber, my remarks must of necessity be exceedingly brief, but I feel it is incumbent upon me to say a few words with respect to the subject matter of the resolution, even in the present condition of my voice.
Let me at once compliment the mover (Mr. Swanston) and the seconder (Mr. Stewart, Lethbridge) of the resolution upon the excellence of their presentation and upon the wealth of material which they have brought to bear upon their argument and discussion. Indeed, it has occurred to me that the discussion, particularly on the part of the proponents of the resolution, has been conducted throughout on a very high plane, with exceptional credit to those who have participated. I say "proponents" of the resolution, because I could not help feeling that I was on old and familiar ground in listening to the arguments of some of my hon. friends opposite. I was at pains to follow the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn) who demonstrated to a reductio ad absurdum that a duty upon wool would have the effect of lowering the price to the farmer and therefore would be disastrous to the industry. Apparently his argument found favour among those who surround him. But if you please, sir, almost in the same moment an hon. gentleman who sits but a few feet from him, the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young), proceeded to demonstrate that the placing of a duty upon wool would have the effect of increasing the price to such an extent that it would be too expensive to use and people would have to resort to cotton. I could not help thinking that hon. gentlemen opposite, as illustrated in the two speeches to which I have referred, were absolutely consistent in their characteristic inconsistencies. But, that while this inconsistency came from two different hon. gentlemen opposite, they at least were in far better position than those gentlemen of their party whom I used to -hear twenty-one years ago demonstrate upon the platform that reciprocity with the United States was going to get the farmer higher prices and the consumer cheaper commodities.
I do not propose to enter into a discussion as to the merits of the resolution, but I could not help making this brief reference to the position-I might say, to the juxtaposition- of hon. gentlemen opposite. There must be something wrong with an industry which today, with a population in Canada of more than 10,000,000, has only as many sheep as there were sixty years ago when our population was just one-third of what it is now. The argument presented by the proponents of this resolution impressed me very favourably. There is a time-honoured custom as to the method whereby announcements with ' respect to the tariff are made, and it is not incumbent upon me to make any pronouncement now as to what it is the intention of the government to do.


Edward James Young: We can guess that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: But I will say this much, that the resolution now before the house, taken not as an absolute direction but as an expression of approval of a principle, in that sense is quite acceptable to the administration.


Mr. THOMAS McMILLAN (South Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention
whtever of participating in this debate, but when I hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) and the newly appointed Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) take the stand which they have taken to-night, I feel that I should say something. I should like first to congratulate the Minister of Finance on his elevation to his present position. His appointment has been pleasing to every member of the house. We note with pleasure the manner in which he discusses any question with which he chooses to deal. He has always that fine, soft smile we like to see from any person, even if he happens to be saying things he may not approve.
But the point I should like to make is this: if the imposition of a duty on wool is something which ought to be done in order to aid the industry of agriculture, and in particular the sheep growers of this country, why have the members on the government side been silent as the grave for seventeen months until the third session of this parliament? Why have these two ministers of the crown been silent during all that time respecting the matter? Is it because, as I happened to say over twelve months ago, this is a one-man government with a following so meek and submissive one would almost think a condition of hibernation had taken possession of them? I am not going to discuss the matter at length, but I should like to say this: I have not heard all the discussion to-day, but I have heard hon.
Canadian Wool Industry

gentlemen opposite time and time again discuss this question of protection and the principle of protection. I believe the words of Thomas Carlyle are as true to-day as the day they were uttered when he said:
During these many years I have heard no argument for it excepting such as might make the angels and even the very jackasses weep.


James Beck Swanston: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate I must thank hon. members who have given such support to the resolution.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would inform the house that if any hon. member wishes to speak he should do so before the hon. member speaks; otherwise he will close the debate.


James Beck Swanston: This subject is very
important to the wool growers of this country, especially to those of western Canada because of the long distance that separates them from the market where they can sell their wool. I appreciate the stand taken by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) and also by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). I hope the government will see fit to give this situation their early and favourable consideration.


Eccles James Gott: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent (Ontario) (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted I would have voted for the resolution.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauhamoia (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted I would have voted for the resolution.


Mr. MURPHY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Cas-grain). Had I voted I would have voted for the resolution.


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


John Vallance: I was paired with the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted I would have voted against the resolution.


Mr. TUMMON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Hoehelaga (Mr. St-Pere). Had I voted I would have voted for the resolution.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto Northeast (Mr. Baker). Had I voted I would have voted against the resolution.


Mr. SEGUIN (Translation):: I was paired
with the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve). Had I voted I would have voted against the resolution.

Public Service-Salary Deduction


Mr. DUBOIS (Translation):: I was paired
with the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have voted against the resolution.


Mr. GIROUARD (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Lafleehe). Had I voted I would have voted against the resolution.


Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette). Had I voted I would have voted against the resolution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was paired with the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). Had I voted I would have voted for the resolution. May I add that in view of the pairing which took place this afternoon an adjustment was made of the pair of the right hon. leader of the opposition, so that the opposition was not deprived of that vote.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.58 p.m.
Tuesday, February 23, 1932