1932-10-14

FRENCH TEXT OF SUPPLEMENTARY VOLUME OF REPORT

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay upon the table the French text of the supplementary volume of the report of the Imperial economic conference of 1932, containing the text of all the trade agreements concluded during the conference.
I notice the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) is not in his place but I should like to make a statement with reference to his observations. He observed that the translators had had this material' since August 19 and that the translation should have been completed at the time. When he made that observation, I assume the hon. gentleman was not aware that the compilation included not merely the text of the agreement between the United Kingdom and Canada but the text of all the other trade agreements signed on August 20. The printing of the English text of these agreements and the translation into French could not be effected until a definite agreement had been reached as to the time of publication of the agreements, and this obviously depended upon the parliamentary situation and the procedure necessary for bringing the agreements into effect in all of the nine countries which were parties to the various agreements. It was, as a matter of fact, only Monday of this week that we were advised by one of the dominions of its consent to the printing of its agreement with the United Kingdom at the present time,
Questions

while on Tuesday we were notified of a change in another agreement, reached by mutual consent.
Under these circumstances, it was not possible to complete the printing of the English text of the agreements in question until the day they were tabled in the house, and I am sure, in the knowledge of these circumstances, the member for Quebec East will agree with me that the translators and printers have been very expeditious in making it possible to table the complete French text to-day. I did not know the other day with certainty but I know now that galley proofs of the French text were furnished to members of the press gallery on the afternoon of the day on which the English text was tabled, that is, on Wednesday.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What is the capital cost to date of the steamship N. B. McLean?
2.	What is the yearly cost of operation of above ship including "laid up" period as well as when patrolling Hudson bay and strait?


Mr. DUPRE:: 1.	$1,253,138.50. 2.	From August 1,	1930,	to	March 31, 1931. From April 1,	1931,	to	$118,605 23March 31, 1932. From April 1,	1932,	to	131,449 71September 30, 1932.. ..	58,423 02


MR. M. P. GALLAGHER
Mr. BARRETTE:: 1.	How many years has Mr. M. F. Gallagher, chief of the pardon service, been in the employ of the Department of Justice?
2.	By whom was he recommended?
3.	What is his salary?
4.	During the years 1930, 1931 and 1932, has Mr. Gallagher taken any holidays?
5.	During said years, has Mr. Gallagher visited the penitentiaries of Canada at the expense of the department?
6.	If so, what were the expenses of each inspection per year?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Fifteen (15) years.
2.	The late Right Hon. C. J. Doherty.
3.	$5,940.
4.	Yes.
5.	In 1930, no. In that year the inmates of penitentiaries were interviewed for clemency purposes by the dominion parole officer, now

superannuated, whose functions have been transferred to the remission service. In 1931 and 1932, yes.
6.	1930, nil; 1931, $444.72; 1932, $695.15.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What was the original amount voted for Soldier Settlement Board scheme?
2.	What was the number of farms purchased: (a) raw lands; (b) improved farms?
3.	What was the cost of administration each year till the present time?
4.	What was the amount voted for revaluation and cost of administration?
5.	What was amount voted for 30 per cent reduction and cost of administration?
6.	In reference to 30 per cent reduction, what was the amount actually credited against settlers' principal and amount credited against arrears of interest?
7.	What was the amount of arrears and interest owed by settlers prior to 30 per cent reduction?
8.	What was the amount of arrears and interest owed by settlers at this date since the 30 per cent reduction?
9.	What is the collective debt of existing soldier settlers to the board to date?
10.	What in the opinion of the board is the aggregate valuation of the farms of existing soldier settlers to date?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. DUFF:: For a return showing a list of all federal public works started, or for which tenders have been called and contracts awarded, or listed for future construction, in Nova Scotia, by constituencies, since April 1, 1932; the nature of same, whether wharves, breakwaters, etc.; whether such works are on regular estimates or undertaken as relief measures; the amounts expended or estimated to be expended during the current fiscal year; names of localities and foremen of construction; current rate of wages paid.


MR. C. A. GOYETTE, K.C.
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: For a copy of all telegrams, letters, correspondence and other documents exchanged between Mr. Castonguay or any member of his staff in connection with the dismissal of C. A. Goyette, K.C., returning officer in Ste. Marie, Montreal.


GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, October 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. P. G. Davies for an address to His Excellency the

The Address-Mr. Vallance
Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coote.
Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a
few remarks upon the address, might I first of all join with those who have preceded me in congratulating the two young members, one the mover (Mr. Davies) and the other the seconder (Mr. Laurin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I think they conducted themselves in a very able manner and considerable credit should go to the constituencies which nominated and elected these two young men.
I intend to deal very briefly with some of the remarks made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). While he was delivering his address the other day in reply to that of my hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) I could not help but notice some very striking statements and I propose to quote shortly from the utterances of the Prime Minister upon that occasion. He said:
I fancy, Mr. Speaker, that most of us listened with some surprise to the observations of the right hon. gentleman this afternoon,-surprise not untempered with regret. The surprise was that the effort was so feeble; the regret was that it was so lacking in constructive suggestions. I need hardly remind this house that we had expected one thing at least in which we are not disappointed. There was no policy that he did not adopt, no suggestion he did not make that might catch a single vote. He ran true to form. There was nothing that had been heard in the heavens above or the earth beneath or the waters under the earth to which appeal was not made for the purpose of deriving some assistance and support.
In view of those remarks and after looking back some three months at the pledges given by the Prime Minister, I cannot help but come to the conclusion that such utterances are very ill advised. I am reminded of a story which used to travel throughout western Canada some twenty-five or thirty years ago. We had at that time in the city of Calgary a noted character, a member of the legal profession of which the Prime Minister is a member. He was an Irishman named Paddy Nolan, and the Prime Minister and he, on a few occasions, met on opposite sides of a case in court. On this particular occasion the Prime Minister, as usual, was waxing very eloquent, and as I looked at him the other day I was reminded of this story. These two gentlemen appeared in court, one for the prosecution and the other for the defence. The right hon. gentleman 53719-14
was pleading to the judge and jury, and every now and then he would snap his fingers and call the page and ask for So and So on Such and Such. He did this repeatedly and, I suppose, with some effect. Our old friend Pat Nolan got up and after addressing the court for a few seconds also snapped his fingers. The page came and he said, " Boy, will you kindly bring me Bluff by Bennett." It seemed to me that while the Prime Minister was giving utterance to the words I have just quoted, it was the same bluff. He has been noted throughout his public life-I do not know anything about his private life- as a great bluffer, and I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and this house, for fear they do not know it, that the right hon. gentleman may pull that bluff once throughout Canada but he will never pull it in the next general election. And as was suggested the other day by my good friend from Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard), he is rather loath to try it.
I proceed now to deal with conditions as I have found them in the various parts of Canada through which I have travelled, but I propose first of all to read something pertinent to the present situation, and I would ask hon. gentlemen to listen carefully to it and to decide in their minds, as I read, precisely in what period of our history the passage I am about to quote was written.
The condition of England, on which many pamphlets are now in the course of publication, and many thoughts unpublished are going on in every reflective head, is justly regarded as one of the most ominous, and withal one of the strangest, ever seen in this world. England is full of wealth, of multifarious produce, supply for human want in every kind; yet England is dying of inanition. With unabated bounty the iand of England blooms and grows; waving with yellow harvests; thick-studded with workshops, industrial implements, with fifteen millions of workers, understood to be the strongest, the cunningest and the willingest our earth ever had; these men are here; the work they have done, the fruit they have realized is here, abundant, exuberant on every hand of us; and behold, some baleful fiat as of enchantment has gone forth, saying, "Touch it not, ye workers, ye master-workers, ye master-idlers; none of you can touch it, no man of you shall be the better for it; this is enchanted fruit." On the poor workers such fiat falls first, in its rudest shape; but on the rich master-workers too it falls; neither can the rich master-idlers, nor any richest or highest man escape, but all are likely to be brought low wdth it, and made "poor" enough, in the money sense or a far fataler one.
Of these successful skillful workers some two millions, it is now counted, sit in workhouses, poor-few prisons; or have "out-door relief" flung over the wall to them,-the workhouse bastille being filled to bursting, and the strong poor-law broken asunder by a stronger. They sit there, these many months now; their hope



The Address-Mr. Vallance
of deliverance as yet small. In workhouses, pleasantly so-named because work cannot be done in them. Twelve-hundred-thousand workers in England alone; their cunning right-hand lamed, lying idle in their sorrowful bosom; their hopes, outlooks, share of this fair world, shut-in by narrow walls. They sit there, pent up, as in a kind of horrid enchantment; glad to be imprisoned and enchanted, that they may not perish starved.
Now undoubtedly if I were to ask when these words were penned, you might quite truthfully say that they could have been written last week or last month or eighteen months ago. As a matter of fact, they are the words of Thomas Carlyle, written in 1840.
I have another quotation which I should like to read to the house before proceeding. This is from Sam Slick the Clockmaker, which most of us have read. This is what Sam had to say in that quaint language of his:
They tell me, too, that the council doors are to be opened so that we can hear the debates. That will be a great privilege, won't it? "Very," said the Clockmaker. It will help the farmer amazingly, that. I should count that a great matter. They must be worth hearing, them councillors. It's quite a treat to hear members in the house, particularly to hear when they talk about bankin', the currency, the constitution, bounties and such tough knotty things. They go in deep into these matters and know so much about them,-it is quite edifying.
That also could have been written last week or a month ago, but it could also have been written only yesterday. But Sam Slick gave utterance to these words just one hundred years ago.
I suppose some will make the statement that the condition through which the world is passing today is the recurrence of that cycle which we experience from time to time, but I am not one of those who believe that such conditions occur in cycles; I am one of those who hold that I am master of my destiny and captain of my soul. Therefore I believe that we and we alone are responsible for the condition through which we are now passing. If we admit that depression comes in cycles, why should we be standing here, each trying to contribute something to the solution of the problem that faces us. If these things work in cycles, if I admit that, then I must logically conclude that when we reach the peak of prosperity or of inflation, or when we get down to the depths of depression, there must be some point in the cycle where responsibility can be placed for our not being able to right ourselves on an even keel. I believe, however, that we are far enough advanced in our civilization to be able at all times to keep things riding on an even keel. I pick up today's paper and what do I find in it? In today's Citizen I read the following:

We see, on the one hand, Nature, immensely bountiful; scientifically equipped factories capable of providing every home want, and ready to raise the general standard of living of all human beings to an infinitely higher level; and, on the other, millions of men all over the world without work, in great poverty and want; factories working at a loss, to 25 or 50 per cent of capacity;
I propose, in my humble way, to give what I think is something of a contribution to the solving of the present problem. I listened the other night with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher) as he enumerated some of the causes that had been given to him as he travelled through western Canada. I do not think there has been a time in our history when men and women have given so much thought to the economic condition of the world.
Now I think, Mr. Speaker, that we will all agree that wealth is produced from four sources. We have our natural resources; our forests, our fisheries, our mines and our agriculture. What is the condition of those primary industries to-day? The member for Aoadia (Mr. Gardiner), when addressing the house the other night, dealing with the causes of what he chose to call the overproduction of commodities said that in his opinion it had started from the day we harnessed the steam engine. Now, natural resources of themselves are of no avail. The ore in the mine, the fish in the sea and lakes, agricultural products, or the trees in the forest are of no avail without the application of labour. By the application of labour we transmute those natural resources into what I propose to call wealth. I would ask this house one simple question; has there been at any time in the whole history of civilization, any country or any community of which we have any written record, that has admitted that they had too much wealth? I say it is not from the production or fabrication or development of these natural resources that our trouble today arises. The trouble is in the distribution. That is absolutely my honest conviction. The trouble lies in the many ramifications that enter into the distribution of goods. If I were asked what are the three outstanding factors responsible for the position in which we find ourselves today I would put them in this order; first, that we have developed, not only in Canada, but in most countries of the world, what I propose to call a narrow nationalism. Then I would say that these artificial barriers which we have erected against the free flow of goods are probably the second, if not the greatest cause of this disruption today. And third,

The Address-Mr. Vallance
I would put the control of currency and credit. So I propose briefly to deal with those three subjects.
I will take first narrow nationalism. The question may arise in the minds of those within sound of my voice, what do I mean by narrow nationalism? I ask you to look at Europe today, what do you find? You find great national movements in every land. You find the Fascist movement in Germany. What for? In order to create a greater and stronger nationalism to protect that thing which is sacred to them, that great nationality. We look to Italy and we see the Fascist movement growing stronger and stronger there. We look to France and Russia, what do we see in Russia? I am reminded of a book I read, written by George Williams, the ex-president of the United Farmers of Canada in the province of Saskatchewan. As I read that book there were two features that struck me as rather astounding; the first that during his sojourn in Europe, Russia was the first entrenched boundary that he crossed. Why was Russia so deeply entrenched? Simply to preserve that nationalism in which she believes. The second feature is, he said, that as he travelled through Russia with his escort, in every factory, every state farm, every place he went he found to his amazement a little place or corner that they called the "red comer." Naturally when we hear the word "red" we figure that that is where all the radicals will have foregathered. But that was not so. In that corner you found all the munitions of war, every one dissected, showing the mechanism, showing the function for which they were created. There you found bombs of every description, there a model of an aeroplane, there a tank. He asked his guide, "What does all this mean, why the red corner, why the tank"? He was on a state farm at the time. His guide pointed to a tractor in the field, he said, "The tractor driver of today may be the driver of a tank tomorrow." Why was Russia doing this? Narrow nationalism. Fear of those around her, fear of France, fear of Italy, fear of everything.	The one thing that narrow
nationalism breeds within us all is fear. I look to the boundary of our own country, there I find some three thousand miles of frontier, not a gun, not a soldier. Why? Because we have absolute faith in each other and no fear. long as that narrow nationalism prevails throughout the world it will in my opinion be much more difficult to overcome the troubles which now oppress us and to bring about the better condition that we all desire.
53719-14J
In Canada we had in our last election our "Canada first" policy. In Great Britain they had the "Buy British" campaign. That was re-echoed all over Europe. There is a tendency to bind ourselves into units more tightly as time passes, in spite of the fact that science and invention tend to break down those very things. Today it is possible for an individual to stand in this capital city and his voice within an instant of time will be heard all over the earth. We realized that during the Imperial conference, when my good friend Ian Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) sat among the heather on the hills of Scotland and there listened to the voices, hearing them as plainly as though he sat within this chamber. They were heard all over the prairies, in England and throughout the empire.
Then our means of transportation. No longer do you see the ox-cart or the old carriers conveying goods along the turnpike. We travel now at great speed. There was a time within the memory of many in this house when in the old land you cared not who lived in the next village five or six miles away. Why not? Because you were an economic unit within yourself. I can well remember as a boy in Scotland-and I am not so very old-when we had in every village the blacksmith, the cooper, the weaver, the miller, everyone was there. No one cared what happened in the next community a few miles away. But those conditions have changed. Yet we in the legislative chambers not only of Canada but all over the world are trying by legislation to bind tighter those units that science and invention would lead us to break down. I believe that until we get a larger viewpoint and are able to see it as expressed by Bobby Burns:
When man to man the world o'er,
Will brithers be for a' that.
our present troubles will not be cured.
Now I proceed to the second cause, the restriction of trade by tariffs. In my humble opinion, Mr. Speaker, that is the greatest of all. The only reason why we have this unconsumed accumulation of goods that Carlyle mentioned in 1840, that Sam Slick mentioned one hundred years ago, that every individual todays knows we have in this civilization, is that by our legislative measures we prevent the free flow of goods. You cannot tell me that in a country such as ours there is any necessity for the condition that we are experiencing today. I listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) the other day telling the house of an actual case where a lady sold four dozen
The Address-Mr. Vallance

eggs for five cents a dozen and bought in exchange two packets of garden peas, for which she paid ten cents each, and returning home she counted the peas and found that there were only thirty-three. Two days before I left home I sent one of the lads to the village with a load of wheat, 61J bushels of No. 1 northern, with only one per cent damage. The lad's mother wanted a load of coal brought home. He got $18.45 for that wheat and paid $22.40 for a wagon load of coal. Think of it, Mr. Speaker! You cannot trade a wagon load of our No. 1 northern wheat, and there is no better grown in God's universe, for 2,400 pounds of Alberta coal. I listened to my hon. friend from Weyfourn (Mr. Young) when he was stating to the house the other night what in his opinion was wrong, that the farmer today is giving four hours of his labour for every hour that the industrialist is giving. I do not know what coal costs at the pithead, but I do know that when we were getting $1.75 for our wheat, we could buy a load of coal with a load of wheat. But there is no relation between the two values today, and until the primary producer is placed in a position where he has purchasing power we shall never get out of this calamity.
I might give another illustration. We have a place in Saskatchewan by the name of Ravenscrag, and I quote this from the Saskatoon Star of September 16, 1932:
It does not pay to ship fat cattle from the Ravenscrag district, at least not when the profit is only ninety cents.
So Neil Pratt, farmer of the district, found in shipping a fat cow to Moose Jaw recently, through the cooperative.
His returns, after freight and all other charges were deducted, were exactly ninety cents.
During the election campaign the Conservative party certainly admitted that a government could exercise some control and they said that if they were returned to power they would exercise control to see that conditions of that day no longer continued. We tried to tell them at that time that no government had the power to carry out such promises as were then being made by the Conservative party, and yet that no government could divest itself of the obligation of attempting to fulfil its promises. But the people fell for those promises, and the government is now saddled with the responsibility of attempting to bring about changed conditions throughout Canada.
While I am on this subject of conditions as they exist in this country, and particularly in western Canada as I have observed them, I would remind the house that when the

Prime Minister introduced his Unemployment and Farm Relief bill I asked him in what way he or the government proposed to relieve agriculture. I was told at that time that the government had no specific policy in that regard. I then asked if it was the intention of the government to continue the five-cent bonus, and if not, had the government changed their minds and decided to accept the suggestion and pay a bonus of one dollar per acre? The Prime Minister arose and very politely said that the government had not yet decided, but we are taking power in the bill, he said, to deal with the matter should an emergency arise. Now the question I should like to ask is, just when in the opinion of the government will conditions be bad enough to be considered as constituting a crisis? At many points in Saskatchewan to-day No. 1 northern wheat is selling for less than thirty cents a bushel. Last year when I delivered my wheat, not being an actual grower within the definition as interpreted by the chairman of the grain commission, I did not receive the five-cent bonus, but I was able to sell No. 1 northern at 414 cents a bushel. I have a return in my office for some wheat that I shipped about the Thursday prior to the day I left home to come down here, and it shows that I received the munificent sum of $447 for a carload of No. 1 northern wheat, containing between fourteen and fifteen hundred bushels. You cannot today exchange a carload of wheat for a carload of anthracite coal, pound for pound. You cannot even exchange a carload of No. 1 northern wheat today for a carload of Lethbridge coal, pound for pound. What is the government going to do about it? Does the government yet realize that a crisis does exist? Has the government given any intimation at all to the wheat pools? I noticed in the press the other day that the pools had made some representations to the government regarding what they proposed to do, and that they were asking for a renewal of the five cents a bushel bonus. I would like the government to announce its intention in that regard as soon as possible.
There are several other very important matters that I should like to take up, but my time is passing fast. I picked up a paper the other day, and I should like to draw the attention of the house to this strange anomaly. Our good friend the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) addressed the Arthur Meighen Club at Regina, and I quote from the report of his speech:
Dr. Cowan foretold a shake-up in the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa. As a representative of a rural riding, he was going to Ottawa to talk business this time, he said.

The Address-Mr. Vallance
I should like to know from my hon. friend from Long Lake and from the other members from Saskatchewan who are sitting behind the government, after all they have said to the people of that province, why they are maintaining this clamlike silence. During all this debate there has not been an utterance from the government benches outside of the speech of the Prime Minister himself. If I know anything about the province of Saskatchewan, I know that the people there are watching with a great deal of interest to see what action will be taken by the representatives from that province sitting behind the government in this house.
There are other matters upon which I should like to touch, but time will not permit. I notice that our good friend from Rose town (Mr. Loucks) was very active between sessions addressing meetings. True they were Tory meetings, but still his audience was composed of residents of Saskatchewan and citizens of this dominion, and I know that these people whom he was addressing, and telling the wonderful things he did tell them, are watching very keenly to see whether he will tell this government what he told them.
There is a matter which I wish particularly to take up with the government, a matter in which, I may say modestly, I took a very prominent part during the last session. It had to do with farm implement repair parts. It will be remembered that when the right hon. the Prime Minister brought down his first budget, as Acting Minister of Finance, he proposed certain alterations in the schedules dealing with farm implement repair parts, and because of the representation made undoubtedly by those who sit beside him as well as by us who sit in opposition, although we voiced our views on the floor of this house, the Prime Minister gave us the assurance that the proposed new schedules would not be brought into operation until March 31, 1932. I rose in my place about the 25th or 27th of March and directed a question to the government at that time, asking if it was their intention to bring the new schedules into operation after the 31st of March. The reply I got from the Prime Minister was that the member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) was an old parliamentarian and ought to know that these things could not be revealed until the Minister of Finance brought down his budget. I waited patiently until April 1, when I again rose in my place and directed this question to the Minister of Finance:
Some two weeks ago I directed a question to the Prime Minister which I wish now to direct to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), this being the first of April. When the Prime Minister, acting as Minister of Finance, presented his budget last year, he brought in certain schedules having to do with the tariff on repairs to farm implements. Because of representations made by the opposition he decided that these schedules should not become operative until after March 31. It is now April 1, and I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if those proposed schedules are now in operation or if the government have taken care of the situation by order in council.
The Minister of Finance, always courteous and considerate, rose in his place and gave the following, in my opinion, very definite answer:
Pending the bringing down of the budget, I am happy to inform my hon. friend that the matter is being provided for by order in council.
That was on April 1. Then, when the Minister of Finance brought down his budget he had the following to say, which will be found at page 1915 of Hansard:
With one exception, no tariff amendments are therefore proposed. The exception relates to repair parts for farm implements, for which the special rate granted to March 31, 1932, will be further extended to March 31, 1933.
We have not yet reached the year 1933. I left Ottawa towards the end of the session, two days before the prorogation of the house. Hon. members may imagine my amazement, Mr. Speaker, when I learned that on May 25, memorandum No. 536 was issued by the Department of National Revenue at Ottawa which stated that the lower tariff would apply only to parts or repairs made by the original maker of the machine, such change to become effective immediately. This is the serious ruling to which I refer; it is one that will affect not only the farmer's cost of production, but every industry and activity in Canada.
I well remember that during the session previous to the last one, the Prime Minister gave a lecture to the farmers throughout Canada in which he stated that the one thing they might as well know then, as well as at any other time, was that in order to meet the competition of Australia, the Argentine-yes, and Russia-they must cut down costs of production. I think, Mr. Speaker, you will agree with me that when the nation is passing through such trying times, when we find it impossible to buy new things, and are patching up the old ones, the easiest way to cut down production costs, so far as farmers are concerned, would be to allow repairs to enter the country so that the old implements may be made to operate. That, however, did not seem to be the plan of this government.
The Address-Mr. Vallance

I see two or three ministers in their seats, and I should like to ask them if it was the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryck-man) or the Minister of Finance who considered the representations made? We had the assurance from the Minister of Finance that the schedules would be in operation until March 31, 1933. This change very seriously affects western Canada, and no doubt eastern Canada, if they use implements similar to ours.
The implement part industry in western Canada is very extensive. Each year hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent by western farmers when buying repairs for their machinery. In the three western prairie provinces there are many settlers from the United States, some of whom brought machinery from their native state. Of necessity, they must obtain repair parts from across the line. There have sprung up several concerns confining their activities to the creation of implement repairs. To my mind, it would be logical to conclude that the representations must have been made to the government by, we will say, the Massey-Harris Company, John Deere, the International Harvester Company, or some other large manufacturing concerns in Canada which manufacture parts for their own machines.
I am not prepared to agree with the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) when he states that Mr. Thomas Russell, president of the Massey-Harris Company, is responsible for the change. I should not like to place the blame entirely upon Mr. Russell. I feel, however, that there has 'been a concerted effort on the part of those who have been most affected, and I feel, further, that those others who are interested in machinery parts, should be told by the government who made the representations. In that way, quite probably the name of Mr. Russell would be cleared.
Binder and combine canvas come under the term "repairs." For days and days, and at one time for two weeks, it was utterly impossible at any point in western Saskatchewan to buy canvas for a binder. That condition was brought about because the order to which I have referred had gone out, making it absolutely prohibitive for importers to bring in the goods necessary to meet the demand. Further, when the original assurance was given by the government, certain merchants placed orders for parts, 'but later on had to cancel them. They took delivery of the portion of their orders which had been manufactured, but had to cancel all further orders. In that way a financial hardship was brought about, and a further hardship was suffered by farmers who

could not obtain repairs. As I have previously stated, I believe we ought to know who made the representations, and why the government broke faith with hon. members in the house when, as a matter of fact, assurance had been given by the Minister of Finance.
If my time has not elapsed, I should like to say a few words concerning the subject of finance.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I should like to inform
my hon. friend that the regulation to which he has made reference has very recently been cancelled.


John Vallance: I thank the minister for that information.


Hugh Guthrie: No doubt the Minister of National Revenue will make a statement in regard to the matter at the earliest opportunity. He was suddenly called away from the house to-day.


John Vallance: I should like to thank
the government, through the Minister of Justice, for the information he has given.


Mr. YOUNG:: It is a case of locking the
stable after the horse has been stolen.


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


Mr. ARTHUR DENIS (St. Denis) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, owing to the indifference of this government to vindicate their administration, I had decided not to take part in this debate. However, I deemed it my duty to strongly protest against this discourtesy and unbecoming conduct of the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) towards me, when I inquired whether the government was in a position to answer the request which had been made to it in connection with contributing its share to the work which will be carried out in Montreal to relieve the unemployed. As a representative of one of the constituencies of Montreal, I was entitled to receive an answer, and the hon. minister's duty was to give me that answer.
The city of Montreal is of some importance in this country. If the hon. minister is unaware of the fact, I wish to remind him of it, and, when the opportunity arises, the people of my constituency, those of Montreal and the province of Quebec will remind him of it also.
I am aware that a number of French Canadian ministers were present in the house when I made the inquiry-it will be impossible for them to plead that they could not understand our beautiful French language. They could have replied, but they preferred

The Address-Mr. Denis
to keep a culpable silence. They neglected their duty-the day of atonement is near. For the present, let me tell them that their conduct is unworthy of the trust reposed in them iby the people. May Providence soon give us an opportunity of making them pay dearly for their behaviour towards those who have at heart to protect the interests of those they represent.
Ever since I have occupied a seat in this house, sir, I have never heard any speech from the Throne proving more clearly the incompetency of this government in administering public affairs. It is a speech which may be likened to the prevailing depression. Is there among us any one who could imagine that a government, or rather to be more precise, that a Prime Minister could take upon himself the responsibility of putting in the mouth of the King's representative such a speech? No one, I think, could possibly imagine it. However, we can consider ourselves lucky that the King's representative did not take any offence. This might have been the cause of a catastrophe and disrupted the ties of "bonne entente" which should exist between the government and the governor general of Canada.
May I, however, be permitted to extend my sincerest congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the Throne. I wonder how they found it possible to express a few pleasant words to their Leader? It was rather a difficult task, under the circumstances. Happily for them their imagination supplied what was lacking. Recalling the flattering remarks addressed to their Leader by certain distinguished political statesmen who took part in the Imperial economic conference, they repeated them; but they should have taken into consideration that these compliments were made in order to make him more yielding, and if necessary, make him forget his political hobby "Canada First" which was greatly detrimental to this country.
The report of the Imperial economic conference proves that these compliments had their required effect. "Canada First" was set aside, but what a calamity! The right hon. Prime Minister had recourse to another dangerous hobby, to say the least: the "British Empire First" which is equivalent to saying: Outside of the Empire, no salvation 1 Far be it from my thoughts, sir, to oppose a greater trade with the British Empire and the Colonies, but what I do object to is that this preference resembles the policy of high protection of this government, these high walls
which have been so detrimental to Canada's trade, and which will be a hinderance to the whole British Empire, should they be adopted. It is unfortunate, but it seems impossible to make our friends opposite, and especially their leader, understand that excess always leads to disaster. With "Canada First" our country was plunged into the greatest distress and grief. With the "British Empire First"
I am convinced the whole Empire will perish. The League of Nations at one of its last meetings was unanimous in condemning high protective tariffs. If the world, today, is experiencing such an acute crisis, it is because all countries have been guilty of enacting a policy of excessive protection.
What can be done to redress so many wrongs? Return immediately to the sound policy of the Liberal party of 1896, advocated and practised by our worthy and lamented Sir Wilfrid Laurier and pursued by our distinguished leader the Right Hon. Mackenzie King.
If our country has known happy and sunny days, it is when the public affairs were administered by such men as Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, whose shining gift is to efface himself when it is a question of public welfare. It is unfortunate that the present leader of the government cannot be classed among those who possess this precious gift. Had he been endowed with more public spirit, he would not have been guilty of all the blunders which are put at his door since he is at the helm of the country's affairs. One may be a brilliant barrister, a great financier, by accident, but to play an important part in society, one must know how to efface oneself when the public welfare demands it. It is not what he has done, and that is the reason that the country, under his guidance, bearing the seal of individualism, is moving rapidly towards the greatest disaster. All countries suffer from the same evil. The whole British Empire will sink if it allows itself to be dragged into the current by the present leader of our government.
I do not wish to delay the house any further, but previous to resuming my seat, allow me, sir, to read a paragraph contained in the speech from the throne which struck me forcibly and which summarizes what the government has done to relieve the unemployed.
The problem of unemployment continues to receive the anxious attention of my ministers. Under the powers granted them at the last session of parliament, they have been able to develop further-
The Address-Mr. Denis

Note well the word.
- (to develop)-in cooperation with the provinces and municipalities, a scheme of direct relief to be put into operation during the autumn and winter months to the extent required by prevailing conditions. Plans for the reestablishment of the unemployed in various parts of the country are in preparation and will become operative, as soon as, in the opinion of my ministers-
Perhaps in three years.
*-the public expenditure incident thereto will be productive of commensurate benefits.
"The problem of unemployment continues to receive the anxious attention of my ministers." In what way? I put the question to the right hon. Prime Minister. By rejecting all the means which he has suggested and employed within the last two years and which were the cause of our having today 700,000 unemployed instead of 200,000, with the powers that parliament has vested in him, contrary to our constitution, he discontinued the work to relieve unemployment and substituted the dole. Not satisfied with depriving of work the unemployed, the government has set itself to the task of making them a lazy and good for nothing people. In this respect its work of destruction is complete. This also explains its stubbornness in refusing to contribute its share in connection with certain work in Montreal, which the city wishes to start, to prevent a portion of its population from becoming a lazy and begging class. What the people demand is not dole but work.
I trust, sir, that the government will in the end take a better view of its duties and responsibilities, and that in the course of this session certain amounts will be voted to give work to those who are greatly in need of it. As regards Montreal, the following undertakings would relieve those who have been without work for a long time: resuming work on the Canadian National Railway station, the construction of the great metropolitan boulevard, the central post office station, and the customs building, repairs to the elevator at Pointe-du-Moulin-a-Vent and numerous other works. This would supply bread and coal to the workman, and finally happiness and prosperity would reign in all homes.


Mr. L. E. PARENT (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to congratulate the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne on the able way in which he performed his duty. Monsieur l'Orateur, je tiens a feliciter en frangais 1'honorable depute de Jacques-Cartier (M. Laurin) de la fagon dont il a prononce son discours en appuyant l'a-
dresse en reponse au discours du Trone et je felicite aussi de l'honneur qui en a rejailli sur les eleeteurs de son comte.
The postwar period, Mr. Speaker, was a period of readjustment until 1922, but from that year until 1928 we had great prosperity. That prosperity, however, brought about inflation, caused enormous speculations, and created wealth based on credit facilities, and of course there had to be an end to such excesses. Debts between creditor and debtor nations had to be readjusted, and some of the debtor nations erected tariff barriers in order to stop the importation of goods into their home markets.
There was no reason why Canada should have followed that policy, but in 1930 an election was held in this country which resulted in the present government coming into office on a platform of high protection, and also on the strength of a hundred promises of which practically none could be made good. I do not think anyone expected that this government, after taking office, would carry protection to such an exaggerated degree and so bring about the existing economic disturbance in Canada, together with the distress that has been getting worse ever since hon. members opposite came into power. It was obvious that a tariff policy so exaggerated as that enacted by the present government must injure seriously the trade of the country and intensify the present economic depression which exists throughout the world.
One might have thought that the group to your left, Mr. Speaker, was the only group criticizing this high tariff policy. I intend to quote from the opinions of outstanding economists as to the effect upon trade of high tariff barriers. It is the opinion of these men that high tariffs have the effect of closing foreign markets, of creating a self-contained national trade which results in the over production of commodities and the lowering of prices. Industry as a whole is injured and in time unemployment is created. This unemployment affects not only the labouring man but the clerks in stores, banks and offices, railway employees and professional men of all kinds are affected.
A committee of the League of Nations has the following to say on world-wide high tariff policies:
There is a strangulation of international trade through direct and indirect measures of defence and restriction.
These words could be applied to what has taken place in our own country. It cannot be denied that since 1929 the international trade of this country has shown a contraction

The Address-Mr. Parent
of over 50 per cent. This contraction has been accentuated since a further high tariff policy was enacted by the present government in 1930.
Addressing the Canadian Club in the city of Toronto, the Right Hon. Viscount Hail-sham dealt with the principle of granting preferences in the following words:
We have made it plain that we regard excessive restrictions on international trade as an international evil and we have made it plain that we in the empire are going to set an example in trading to get rid of that evil.
He continued as follows:
What are the two principal causes of the depression? One, I suppose, is the unduly low price of primary products and the other is the constant interference with the flow of international trade by those methods to which I have referred, by prohibitive tariffs, by quotas, restrictions and so on, under which you and I can see the whole trade of the world drying up before our eyes.
The twenty-first report published in March, 1932, of the Imperial economic committee appointed at the 1930 Imperial conference reads as follows:
First, we should place increased stability of labour conditions-both employment and wages -and the conservation and security of local capital. We recognize that tariffs are widely used to encourage the establishment of new industries and the creation of more varied avenues of employment. But tariffs discriminate. It is inherent in their nature. They may or may not be drawn so as to discriminate between goods of different countries, but they certainly discriminate between the many economic activities of the countries imposing them. It follows that on every occasion on which they are imposed or varied the balance of economic advantage is disturbed. The establishment in a country of industries far ahead of its economic capacity diverts local labour and capital into occupations which are inherently insecure, and thus inevitably strains the national economic structure.
Another evil with which we have had to contend is the system of changing values for customs purposes inaugurated by this government. This practice has caused considerable uncertainty in the industrial life of our country and should be discontinued. An article by another leading economist entitled "World Tariff Mad" reads as follows:
Today, we have the spectacle of a world gone "tariff mad." While the diplomatic representatives of the nations are heartily welcomed in each other's capitals, those same nations are effectively destroying mutual trading activity with the weapons of high tariffs. This internecine struggle is being executed as efficiently as the armies of belligerent nations blasted their way through with high explosives and poison gas in the great war.
This is the situation which now exists in this country. Why are we suffering this
present distress in Canada? It is because of the curtailment of trade and industrial activity brought about by high tariff barriers. What have our lion, friends opposite done as regards treaties? We had a treaty with France but it was denounced on December 16, 1931. It had been in force since 1923, and the result of our trading between Canada and France was to the advantage of the Canadian people. In 1931, to take the example of just one year, we sold to France $18,000,000 worth of Canadian goods and purchased from that country $13,500,000. These are as nearly correct figures as I can give. So that in that one year we had a favourable balance of $4,500,000. It was even better the previous year, and it would have been just as favourable in 1932 and in the years to come. I presume that the treaty with France has not been renewed in view of the Imperial economic conference held in Ottawa last July and August. At present I will not say anything regarding the agreements; we shall have another opportunity to discuss them and to see whether we can expect anything good from those agreements or not. But returning to this French treaty, I would point out that France was purchasing our wheat, fruit, fish, asbestos, pulp, automobile parts, farming implements, mineral products, and so forth. What is the present situation? We have no longer a market for our goods. The producers are not meeting with any demand from foreign markets for their surplus goods, so that we are at present in a very distressed condition. Unemployment is worse today than it has ever been. Reports are that we have 700,000 unemployed-men who cannot find any work at all-though at the time our friends opposite took office we had not even one-sixth of that number of unemployed.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that present conditions in this country have been brought about by the high protectionist policy of hon. gentlemen opposite with the resulting curtailment if not the complete loss of foreign markets for our products. The newspapers are full of articles to the effect that the agreements arrived at at the Imperial conference are going to result in great benefit to the Canadian people. But I would point out that this government has lost the opportunities presented during the last two years to enact some real measures to improve conditions. If the present agreements are going to bring about prosperity to the extent predicted, why has not action been taken sooner? Why are we to wait, according to the Prime Minister's words spoken in this house the other day, for
21S
The Address-Mr. Parent

a great opportunity to tell the people of the county of Terrebonne: You see how trade is increasing, how hard we are working on your behalf! A truck gardener from the county of Laval was able to sell a few bundles of celery on the English market!
In closing my remarks, sir, I trust that m the future the policy of hon. members opposite will lean somewhat towards the Liberal one. The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) smiles; he may perhaps be able to answer me shortly. We noted that, at the Imperial economic conference, the government was somewhat disposed to lower the tariff. However, we also note that this leaning towards the policy which we Liberals have always advocated, comes only after the enforcement of an exaggerated policy on tariff. If we consider that the tariff was raised at the first session of 1930, we see, today, that only a light and short step is taken towards our policy. I trust that, in the near future, the government will again step out and lengthen its stride, in order to adopt the Liberal policy, the only one which will bring back prosperity.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset request the mover and seconder of the address to take my congratulations for granted, as it is quite possible I may require the whole forty minutes to cover the ground I have in view.
When I was leaving home about two weeks ago, conversing with a neighbour, I asked him what kind of offensive weapons he expected me to take down to Ottawa to use on this millionaire protectionist government we have. He replied. "Take the best and most effective weapons you have got and use them as skilfully as you know how, or else you don't need to come back to this part of the country again." That, Mr. Speaker, is about the feeling entertained by the west generally. I do not know if I can carry out his injunction, but it is my duty to attempt it to-day so far as it is in my power. It is not a very inspiring duty however, to be criticizing a government that will not stand upon its legs and fight for itself. Possibly they think the Prime Minister has said all that is to be said, possibly they think they are too proud to fight, or possibly they think the country can come to its own conclusion as to their cause of dumbness. Or perhaps they think that what is not said they will not be sorry for, as in the case of that speech at Regina before the Arthur Meighen club. Whatever may be the reason, it would be 
much easier for me to flay them a little if they would get up and hit back, but they are not giving me that opportunity, so I expect my efforts will not be as effective as they otherwise would.
Mention has been made by a number of speakers of the tendency to pad the speech from the throne with fiction and fairy tales and bed-time stories rather than facts, especially with respect to the economic condition of the country. I do not want to dwell too much on that, because it has already been dealt with by a number of speakers. I think maybe it is not as bad this year as last, and I want to speak as approvingly of the government as I can. Here are some of the gems put into the mouth of His Excellency last year:
Canada still maintains its high place in world commerce.
We all know that is a fantasy. We all know it is the very opposite of the facts.
This period of trial has shown the Canadian situation to be fundamentally sound.
Everything in fact seems to be the very opposite of sound, falling asunder.
The provisions made at the last session of parliament for unemployment and farm relief are proving effective.
Yet the need for relief is increasing daily.
Conditions are gradually improving.
How many of us really believe that?
Why should we bring disrespect and contempt on this state document of great importance by filling it with such monstrous statements so far from the facts.
This year it is not quite so bad, although they have left themselves open to a good deal of stricture from a number of members. In view of the slight improvement I am going to make a suggestion to the government; if in the future they feel the spirit moving them to stretch a long bow, to taradiddle a little, I wonder if they could not do it off their own bat instead of putting it into the mouth of His Excellency in the form of a speech from the throne. I am sure that with the apprenticeship that they have had in that line of work they should be capable of performing it successfully.
Now a word about the Prime Minister's speech, which has also been the subject of a great deal of criticism. I must say I resent very much some of his remarks regarding my own leader. When our leader is hit we naturally feel that we are hit ourselves. When our right hon. leader was discussing the economic conference, he spoke of the strained relations that existed towards the end of it,

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
and the Prime Minister when he was replying denied that in toto. He indicated that it was the splenetic tendency of the leader of the opposition that provoked him to make disrespectful references harmful to the conference. I take the ground, Mr. Speaker, that if there was one man in Canada who dbserved all the conventions and proprieties of the occasion both before the conference and since, that man was the right hon. leader of the Liberal opposition in this house, and I think no one can gainsay that. But it looks very much as if he might as well have taken just the opposite course because all his pearls seem to be cast before an inappreciative Prime Minister sitting on the other side of the house. One might as well have the game as the name. Our leader is courtesy itself, and as to the proprieties he knows them as well as any other man in this house, and observes them as well as any other man in this house. As an evidence that our right hon. leader was right, that he had justification for his statements with respect to the proceedings of the conference towards the last lap, may I quote from an article in the News Chronicle by one Mr. A. J. Cummings, a newspaper correspondent who I -understand was here during the whole conference. The article is very long and I shall quote only briefly from it. Speaking of the delegates he says:
They will never let it be known, for instance, what actually took place behind the scenes of an imperial gathering which at times degenerated into a ferocious dog fight.
Our right hon. leader did not come anywhere near making any such statement as that, and yet this newspaper correspondent writes in this manner in one of the leading Liberal newspapers in the old country, a paper equally well known and probably of the same standing as the Manchester Guardian; and he writes like that not only in one paragraph, but throughout an article consisting of four pages. It is too long for me to read it all, but I shall make one other quotation so that the house can see whether there was any ground for the report that was general all over this country that there -were strained relations during the last stages of the conference. So that it cannot be said that I am picking out paragraphs here and there, I will quote the very next one:
No British minister will ever say in public what has undoubtedly been said in private about the behaviour and bearing of Mr. Bennett, president of the conference, Prime Minister of Canada, and the world's prize bully.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. gentleman is out of order in reading articles reflecting on the debate before the house, and further-


William Richard Motherwell: Do you say, Mr. Speaker, that I am not to continue reading?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Further, I think the impression from the quotation is not parliamentary.


William Richard Motherwell: I was only going to quote further, Mr. Speaker, in the event of the appetite of some of the ministers being whetted and wanting more. I have two choice ones here, but if it is not your wish, Mr. Speaker, that I shall read them, I will leave it at that. I have merely quoted these two paragraphs to show that my leader was quite justified in saying that the relation between the delegates of the mother country and Canada were strained, for here is a newspaper correspc-ndent who says the very same thing in very much blunter fashion.
I wish to deal for a short time with the conditions in agriculture. This is not a new subject, because during the three sessions previous to this the members from the west and from the east have repeatedly told the government of the gradually declining condition of our agriculture. I shall deal more particularly with western agriculture because I am not so familiar with the east as I once was. But I must say that I was very -much struck with a remark made by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) yesterday. You would think she was describing conditions in the west instead of in the east when she said that she did not believe that there was a farm in Ontario that would be able to pay out of its revenues the cost of its operation and the taxes for the current year. No one ever knew of such a condition as that before in the history of Ontario or in the history of this country. We need only refer to the attitude of the mortgage companies towards agriculture. I remember that when I wras only the height of this desk, farm mortgages were thought to be gilt-edged, none better, good as the bank, and yet to-day I do not know of a farm mortgage company throughout the whole of Canada from Halifax to Vancouver that will lend one dollar on a farm mortgage. Why? Because farming is a non-paying, declining business, and the chances of getting your money back are too slim for the owner to let the money out of his hands on any farm mortgage.
In addition to that, the equipment of the farm is gradually declining. The hon. mem-

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
Der for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) has already referred to that. Unless farmers are continually buying new equipment, the old will soon get into disrepair, the buildings and fences deteriorate, as well as everything else about the farm. The moment a farmer gets in that shape he cannot be an efficient farmer. The land begins to g-o down, and it will soon cease to bear the bountiful crops of other years. It gets weedy and out of condition. Why? Because the farmer cannot get back the cost of operating the farm out of the price he receives for his grain, with wheat at about thirty cents per bushel. There is a multitude of other difficulties, vicissitudes of one kind or another, because, as we know, troubles seldom come singly. We have gophers multiplying by the tens of thousands outside, and rats inside, in the barns, reproducing at a terrific rate. There are cut worms, winds and weeds and Tories galore, but in the dominion and in the provincial houses. The people feel that they are beset by all the plagues of Egypt, and some more. I think there were ten plagues of Egypt. One of them has not yet come to pass in the west. The rivers of Saskatchewan have not yet begun to run red, although a lot of people are seeing red. I do not think I am superstitious, but these things happened concurrently with the coming in of Toryism in this country after a long period of prosperous Liberal rule, and we cannot help wondering if there is not some connection between the two. Our minds go back to the fifteen years of prosperity under Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and to the eight or nine years of further prosperity under the King government, and our people are wondering if we will not have to have another change before things get better. Many hoped and 3ighed and prayed in 1930 for a change. Well, they surely got it, and now they are equally anxious for another change, and I think it is coming.
On the top of all these difficulties, we have the action of the relief commission, and this government must accept some responsibility for that. The Prime Minister said that they advised Saskatchewan to appoint a relief commission. They knew its personnel and they authorized them not only to make loans for relief and seed grain purposes to the farmers but supplied the money for it as well, and they authorized them-this is on the promissory notes and the seed grain liens -to collect the money on behalf of the Dominion government. So this government must accept some responsibility for the manner of collection. I must say that I have seen in Saskatchewan what I never expected

to see, and what never was done before to my knowledge. These loans were pressed for and are being pressed for by the relief commission, which endeavours to secure repayment on the very first crop after the sowing of the seed. I do not know of any other case like that in the whole history of Canada. It is true that in 1915, after the drought of 1914, the government of that day did start to make collections on the harvest of 1915. We had an enormous crop that year and the government were possibly justified in some measure in trying to collect some of these loans, but on the protest of the Department of Agriculture at Regina at that time that this practice should be discontinued at once, notwithstanding the big crop and the fair price which the farmers were receiving, that practice was discontinued. Por the farmers at that time to have attempted to pay the whole loan off in one year would have stripped them as bare of revenue as the day they were born. But today in every elevator throughout the relief areas you will find a list of names, and the elevator is asked to make collection as the farmer delivers his grain. There is no escaping it. Writh that bad example being set by the relief commission, and I warned the government what would happen if this course was pursued, we now see a great many of our municipalities doing the very same thing. What happened, for instance, in the old Indian Head municipality, where I delivered my grain for twenty years before a branch line was built north of it? For about ten years that was one of the largest initial shipping points in the world for wheat, a great wheat area, the home of the old Bell farm, the experimental farm and the forestry station. Two hundred and thirty out of three hundred farmers living in the municipality had their wheat seized for back taxes, as reported in the Regina Leader. Probably one of the reasons why some of the other seventy escaped was that they had threshed and sold their wheat before the distraint went into effect. Two hundred and thirty of them have only their wheat seed and grain to the value of $100, the report says, with which to face the coming winter. I learn that already the temperature has been as low as zero on the prairie, and if the temperature in the coming winter continues to increase in severity, those people will have difficult times. Many are quite unprepared for winter. However, that is the condition in which they find themselves. This government, through the relief commission at Regina, is collecting the seed grain liens only six months old, while private

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
creditors keep on waiting for years. If the government's present policy is pursued, half of those people will be back on relief before Christmas comes.
What has this government done for agriculture? Surely everybody recognizes that agriculture in Canada is a sick institution. Not only is it one of the leading industries, but it takes first place in the occupation of the majority of the peoples of the world. There are more people engaged in it than in any other vocation. In Canada, not quite 50 per cent of our population are farmers, but in the province of Saskatchewan a good deal more than that percentage are on the farms. One would have thought that such an important industry, one responsible for the feeding of the world, one representing more than half the population of the world, would have a little consideration at the hands of this government now, when it is sick unto death.
W hat is this government's record in connection with agriculture? One of the first indications we have is to be found in the wiping out of over S3,000,000 in agricultural estimates tabled last year. I should like to add that to build up agricultural estimates is not an easy matter. Some eight or ten years ago, sentiment around parliament hill was not very strongly in favour of the farmers. This was a political and social centre. But, agriculture-well, it was all right; of course it was necessary to have farmers to produce food for the urban communities. At that time, however, people on parliament hill did not attach as much importance to this industry as many of us thought should be attached to it, and that finally was attached to it before the late government went out of power. As a result of the activities of the Liberal government, estimates for agriculture went up higher than they had ever been before. The present minister, to his credit, raised them slightly in his first year. I think, however, that increase must have been a slip on his colleague's part; it must have been an accident, because it did not occur a second time. Then last session, at one fell swoop, the estimates were drastically cut. Never since the massacre of Glencoe, or Cawnpore at the time of the Sepoy outbreak has there been such a massacre as that which took place last year of the Department of Agriculture estimates. Through newspaper pressure, and from pressure within and without the house, over $800,000 of this was restored but this estimate is still over $2,000,000 less than in the year previous. That does not show a desire
to build up a sick agriculture. It looks like, having it down, they are giving it another shot in the eye. That is exactly what they did. The grants to the major winter and summer fairs were reduced by two-thirds of their former amount. The grant for the live stock pool, which was beginning to get on its feet and to function as an export institution, was reduced $10,000. This, plus eleven thousand dollars in losses sustained in exchange on the other side of the water put that institution out of the export business. That is the way the government is helping the farmers. Wonderful, wonderful! I wonder how long a patient would live if a medical doctor treated him that way; I wonder how long a medical adviser would be retained if he gave such service. Unfortunately, we can change our political doctors only once in four years, whereas a private citizen may change his doctor every day, if he so desires.
The hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) made reference to machinery repairs. It is difficult to picture conditions in the country when farmers are attempting to take off their crop with old, dilapidated machinery. During harvest, time is precious, and one can imagine the exasperation of a farmei who has to run around the country and rely or his neighbour's junk pile for repairs when undei normal circumstances, he would be buying new machinery. Had the crops been big in some parts, I do not know how they would have harvested them because of defective equipment. How can they help it? They cannot buy new wagons because a new wagon box alone costs $40, and 120 bushels of wheat would be required to pay for it. I had occasion to buy -well, I did not buy it myself, but it was bought for me-a new inner garment, commonly known as a shirt. We had to give 27 bushels of rye for that shirt. That is a big load to carry around, and may I say if all my garments were bought anew with 15 cent rye it would take 503 bushels of rye to pay the bill. That would be a big jag of rye to carry-I mean of a solid nature.
This government first came to Ottawa in September, 1930, with cries of glee beyond imagination. They were as happy as though they had been going to a marriage feast. At that session they quadrupled the duties on farm implements and then gave the empty promise that the prices of that machinery would not increase. At first, repairs escaped this treatment, and we were asked to be grateful because they were left on the old schedule. That, in the first place, was an

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
admission that to have duties lowered was an advantage.
One would think that this government considered farmers a lot of children, that we had been in this life only two or three years, and knew nothing about affairs. One would think that they were of the opinion we did not know anything about the tariff fabrications they were spinning by the yard. Tariffs went up all along the line at that first special session. We will recall that when the house prorogued there was a brilliant display of gold braid, knickerbockers, gold buckles, and silk stockings, and all were eager to get to Quebec and across the water. Eight days after arriving in London an ultimatum was issued by the Canadian Prime Minister as to what should be done at the conference. Oh well, we will come to that in a few days. I just mention it by the way.
At the last session and the previous one, several matters were referred to the agriculture committee,-a proper place for matters pertaining to agriculture. Before that committee appear members of the staff of the department; experts are called; one may catechize them, and ask this, that and the other thing concerning the matter in hand. Of three important matters referred to the committee, two came from the Department of Agriculture, and one from the Department of Trade and Commerce. A great deal of evidence was heard, and all members of the committee were wondering as to where it would lead. A majority report was prepared, which came before the house, was read and tabled,- and then died on the roost. Whether or not the government were afraid to fight it through, I do not know. Whether or not they believe it was not worth fighting for, I do not know. I do know, however, that the effort in that committee, which ran nearly all session, was simply wasted and thrown away. Probably the committee reported something of which they were not sufficiently proud to ask concurrence in, anyway the report died on the roost and that was the end of it. Apparently no one can dare tell the truth about the condition of agriculture in this country except the Prime Minister, who sometimes tells it inadvertently. I have 'before me a statement made by the Prime Minister before the economic conference committee on monetary and financial questions. There is a good deal of it, but I wish to read only a few words:
Indeed it seems that new disequilibria are created almost as rapidly as old maladjustments are corrected-

These are the words of our Prime Minister, not a Jeremiah but one who is always optimistic.
-and the paralysis of business enterprise with profit margins uncertain or non-existent continues.
That is very different from the speech from the throne. Then the Prime Minister said:
Trade languishes and unemployment persists or tends to become aggravated.
The Prime Minister of Canada was the author of those words. No one can say anything from this side of the house without being dubbed a soap-box orator, a Jeremiah, a dispenser of nostrums or something like that, but the privileged individual who is the first minister of this country can say what he likes at the Imperial conference, spreading it all over the world, and that is all right. He was stating the actual facts of the case. I do not think one should go around advertising these things too much; I think as far as possible we should practise a certain amount of Coueism. I think the imagination has a good deal to do with the way we feel. Even if the sun obscures its face for a few hours we feel the effect upon our temperament; there is no question of that. I am sure my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) will agree with me when I say that sick people are very much affected by their environment; that is why, when they go to the hospital, we send flowers, pleasant messages and hopes for recovery. But if a person has a broken leg that sort of thing will not cure it. In the same way, if your reserves are disappearing year by year, month by month and day by day, and you are getting to the point where you can see the finish not only of your reserves but of yourself, Coueism will not work under such circumstances and so that the government at some subsequent time may not say that we did not tell them of the condition, I am telling them now not for the first time but for the third or fourth time since this government came into power.
Last year the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) brought forward a proposal, not in the form of a bill but during the discussion of the estimates or the budget, relating to an export marketing board, and at that time I went almost beyond what was discreet in giving my sympathetic support to that proposal. I knew it would be quite unacceptable to the British people unless it was presented in a very diplomatic way, but I was prepared to give it a measure of reserved support if there was an ounce of possible help in it. I do not think some of my friends on this side

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
thought I was very wise in doing so, but that was the only opportunity I ever had to support a new proposal brought forward by the present government in regard to agriculture. Agricultural conferences have been held many times and policies have been advertised in the newspapers. Some of them have been repudiated by the minister, but I am afraid the records are against him. The information is all there; it can be found by anyone who wants to look in the records. In all this time, however, the only new policy brought forward had to do with the proposed export marketing board, but now we are told by the Imperial conference report that this proposal is up the flue also. A committee of the Imperial conference considered the question and decided that dumping duties and export marketing boards were not desirable, and they thought it would be better to wipe out the apparently three marketing boards which were already in existence than to create a further one here.
These are some of the things that the government has been doing presumably in aid of agriculture. Not one new policy has been instituted. Some good things have been done, but they have been copied from previous administrations dating back to Hon. Martin Burrell, and now the only new thing has been thrown on the junk pile. I think it might have worked if it had been taken up in the right way. I had hoped that perhaps the live stock pool would be resurrected; that would have been the first step necessary if the scheme had been carried through. The proposal to make the packers the medium for collecting a small charge from the producers of bacon as an export bonus was ridiculous; imagine anyone collecting the smallest possible charge on a three cent hog. They would be met with a pitchfork. That proposal was wisely discarded. There was another way in which this proposal might have been carried out, but since it has gone by the board we will not take time to discuss it. From this government we have not had one particle of new legislation worth a continental; so far as agriculture goes we have simply had the routine work being carried on. I may be wrong in that statement, but if anything else has been done I do not recall it. I will not dwell on what was attempted in connection with the world grain congress and some other things I might mention.
What is to be the future of agriculture, then, if it is in this condition at the present time, with equipment going down and no chance of replacing it at present prices? The only thing we can do is patch it up and keep going or, in the alternative, reduce our acreage to the 53719-15
capacity of our depleted equipment. We are entering upon a period when the law of the survival of the fittest will operate. All the misfits, the unfortunates, the aged, the inexperienced, the no-goods, and all kinds who through no fault of their own find themselves facing bankruptcy will have to drop out. We are often asked why we do not reduce our acreage in the west. The answer is that we would only make place for someone else. For many years the United States has been trying to reduce the acreage of wheat sown, but without success. The farmers take the ground that the other fellow will reduce, and then those who have not reduced will come along with a big crop at revived prices. The law of the survival of the fittest is one of the most inexorable, fearful, exacting and ruthless laws in the world. It is the law of the forest, of the jungle and of the wild life of the land, but I wonder if there is no other law for human beings. That, however, is the law that soon will be in operation. Very soon we will see a reduction of acreage on the open plains because of the inability of farmers properly to look after the land. Many farmers who today are operating a section of land are asking themselves if it would not be better to operate only three-quarters of that land, with their depleted equipment, rather than operate the whole section in an improper way. A half section well operated may give more profit than a whole section done at the wrong time in the wrong way. That is what the farmers are asking themselves, and I tell you that the law of the survival of the fittest, as well as the law of supply and demand, soon will be in ruthless operation on the plains of the west unless some miracle happens. Up to the present time practically all the acreage on the open plains has been kept in tillage, but that cannot continue much longer. I draw this fact to the attention of the government. It has started to nibble a little bit at tariff reduction in the conference agreements but it was only with reluctance and after great pressure had been brought to bear that certain duties were cut down. The government has not done nearly as much in this line as should be done, but maybe the spirit will grow, and more consideration will be given to agriculture. There is yet time to change from this ruthless exacting of high duties from the farmer, even on the repairs to his implements. The policy of this government seems to be to keep alive the secondary interests in the country even though that be done at the cost of the life of the primary industries. There is no reason why there should not be room



The Address-Mr. Motherwell
for both classes of occupation but if any preference is to be shown surely it should be to those who were first on the land and made necessary the secondary industries.
I believe my time has about expired and I must close even though the half has not been told. We on this side have been often accused of just railing at the government. I do not think the government is deserving .of any sympathy as long as its members, such as the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland), choose to wear out their chairs rather than stand up and wear out their boots by standing up and fighting. The government will have to take what is coming to it, that is all. I know the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) is quite capable of defending himself but apparently the fiat has gone forth from the bull moose of the Tory party that the best strategy is to keep quiet. That is the safest policy-the least said, the soonest mended.
I wonder if the following article which appeared in the Regina Leader-Post of September 30, will bring any member of the government to his feet. It reads:
Bennett Gave Party Funds
Contributed $750,000, says Turnbull in club address.
Prime Minister R. B. Bennett "placed $750,000 of his own money in our campaign funds and not much more than that was spent.
I question very much the latter part of that statement but no one has yet denied the first. I wonder if some hon. member on the government side will not get up-not in my forty minutes as was done in the case of the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) -and let us see what he looks like. The hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton) is a good hitter; he can make black look white just as well as any other hon. member. If he cannot give an explanation, the rest might as well not try. Party funds have been discussed before in this chamber, in fact our own party has been under severe criticism. However, it must be remembered that according to the Prime Minister in a former debate there is not a member of this house who has not been assisted by campaign funds from the central committee. We are being told in effect, "Don't do as I do, do as I tell you; you must not have party funds, but we are going to have them. If we, the Conservatives, cannot get them any other way, our leader will dig them up." If some hon. member will get up we will have a snapshot taken as the one and only man in his party besides the Prime Minister, who has taken part in this debate.

If time permits I should like to make one or two suggestions. The first is that all the phases and branches of agriculture should be handled by one department. At one time the Department of Agriculture handled patents and copyrights and a number of other things which have since been turned over to the Department of Trade and Commerce. At one time wheat and all cereals were under the Department of Inland Revenue along with whiskies and tobacco. About thirty years ago they were transferred to the Department of Trade and Commerce, where they have since remained. Any hon. member who attended the meetings of the agriculture committee last year could not have helped observing the friction existing between two excellent staffs. I know of no other country where agriculture is handled by two ministers. That is not the logical and sensible thing to do, and in making that statement I do not criticize any past minister. The present Minister of Trade and Commerce may be better than any of the previous ministers, or vice versa, but that is not the question. No man or department can serve two ministers without breeding trouble.
My second suggestion is that the government should appoint a royal commission, first to diagnose the troubles that beset agriculture, and then to prescribe therefor.
Mr. E. C. ST-PERE (Hochelaga) (Translation: Mr. Speaker, my first thoughts are to extend my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address. The hon. member for A'thabaska (Mr. Davies) spoke on behalf of the majority of the electors of his constituency and my good friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Laurin), devoted the greater part of his speech :n praising the personal accomplishments of the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada, a thing which nobody denies and who, I hope, if the praises of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier are deserved, will give our country an impulsion towards prosperity, and settle certain problems, which, unfortunately, under his administration, the country has not yet been able to solve. The speech from the throne is, so to speak, this session's program. It has many gaps and avoids broaching in a practical way, questions of the moment. Numerous speeches are delivered in the house of rather an academic character, and I wonder why one seems to avoid the problems which should call for our first consideration and require an immediate solution. The government, in the course of last session, had led us to believe that the unemployment question would present a more pleasing aspect, that this

The Address-Mr. St-Pere
anomaly would disappear with the tariff policy adopted and followed by the government. II is nothing new, but rather a truth of La Palice, to state that unemployment prevails, today, more extensively than last year, and, that the situation far from improving has reached the stage, where one oan say that Canadians not only feel the pinch of poverty, but that pauperism reigns supreme in all cities of our beautiful Canada. No doubt, we have all been a party, at least morally, to the methods followed, to this day, to relieve the poor and attenuate the distress of those who are despoiled of everything.
The dole has been a failure. Its distribution has not given the results expected, and we must at all costs try new means, if we wish to see a relative happiness return in the Canadian homes. The healers, sir, have not, for some time past, been scarce in this country; a new class of doctors, that have new remedies to cure this illness. First, they had recourse to the tariff. I put the question to you, sir, to this parliament and to all those desinter-ested, whether the tariff-regardless of the countries which apply it-has succeeded to attenuate the serious nature of the situation and improve business; and in the end given work to the unemployed who have spread over all our large cities. A rural member informed me at noon that the situation in his county was in all respect similar to that of large centres. These high tariff means are after all an exaggerated nationalism of which Lord Hugh Cecil made mention recently, in Europe, likening it to a devouring flame hindering all economic prosperity but especially all hope of financial restoration in all countries.
Others have thought it possible to remedy all the evil by appealing to social measures. I state, in all frankness, that this appeal to social measures has practically given no genuine results, up to date. As to Canada, the lack of uniformity of our social legislation, in the various provinces, is one of the great causes of the present situation. I wonder whether these great institutions that are so highly praised, such as the International Congress of Labour, the International Bureau of Labour, of which we hear so much, have succeeded in giving to the people of our provinces and to all our labour groups in Canada, the relief expected. I contend that these institutions have proved, up to now, to be of a truly European character, and that the labour question in Canada has been but slightly discussed. I have never, sir, appealed to the workmen of my constituency, as factory workers; I consider that all workers, whether in the intellectual sphere or in the mills, have
53719-15}
a right to an existence in our country; that the unemployed with a white collar, those having a profession and unable sometimes to collect their fees, the property owner, forced to lodge gratuitously his unemployed tenant, I state that all these various classes of citizens in Canada are entitled to some consideration from our institutions and are equally entitled to protection from the state.
"Talk" seems to be the main thing in this country. Why, faced with the distressing condition of the unemployed have we not attempted to enforce the scheme of Governor Winant, of New Hampshire? Why not have asked to gather, before a commission specially appointed to that effect, the representatives of our large financial organizations, manufacturers and working classes, so as to find out whether it would not have been possible to come to an understanding, either by a new division of the week and hours of work or by other means to relieve somewhat the present crisis. In our large cities, sir, the question of unemployment insurance is often raised. Speaking on behalf of the workmen of my constituency, workers accustomed in the past to find in our large mills remunerative wages, I state that this system of guarding against the consequences of unemployment finds no support among them. They ask for work, they request that society organizes itself to relieve them in a practical way. They recognize that it is a law established for centuries, that a person must earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, that a citizen must be thrifty, and must support his family. For all these reasons they do not look forward to becoming state pensioners, but demand that means be given to them so as to observe the commandment of daily work. Everybody lauds the precepts of all the great Christian organizations. The president of the United States and the Democratic candidate to the presidency, Mr. Roosevelt, recently commented, and this in a very praiseworthy manner, on the encyclicals of Pius XI; they quoted them as an example to the people of the United States. But if these sound conclusions, these admirable preambles of Christian economists, if these considerations emanating from the Vatican are so timely, what is the reason that those in authority, those who at present appeal for the people's support, do not immediately put them into practice. Public men necessarily seek solutions in political doctrines. With us, the government expects that a great improvement will result from the Imperial conference.
I shall not, sir, encroach on the debate which will take place next week on the sub-
The Address-Mr. St-Pere

ject. I shall limit myself to mentioning, to be in order, that certain impartial economists contend that nothing extraordinary will happen in Canada, as a result of the Imperial conference. The right hon. Prime Minister stated this week, that it would take four or five years before the good effects of the agreements concluded at the Imperial conference became apparent. What will become of the people in the meantime? This is, sir, the great problem which is thrust upon us. International coooperation and charity, well understood, in my opinion, are the only two means which might give genuine results after the next economic conference in London.
Much is heard about wiping out the war debts and disarmament. But, a very strange fact is that France is attached to her submarines, England to her tanks, Italy to her aeroplanes, etc. What is more extra-ordinaiy, the United States, that country so anxious for disarmament and which so strongly urges it on all Europe, to justify her relinquishment of war debts and loans to the allies, when the conference on disarmament was sitting, had her fleet of bombing planes perform evolutions over Mitchell Field and San Diego.
Let us now broach the subject of trade with Russia. I hardly took seriously, at the last session, the statement of principle of our friends opposite. We were asked, we Liberals, especially those of Quebec: Are you in favour or not of trade with Russia? As a matter of principle, no! But we were well aware that international trade often, if not always, pays little attention to questions of principle. And, this has just been proved. Russia indirectly carries on trade with Canada, and this can easily be explained. I hold an extract from the New York Times published last week and in which the following facts are mentioned: the international oil companies are very little concerned with the competition that Soviet Russia can carry on in trade throughout the world. They contend that such transactions have no political influence and foresee that they will have no specific effect on the price of oil as a whole. These foreign companies, states the article, are making a desperate effort to impress Moscow that the Soviet government cannot possibly remain alone in competing against all foreign countries.
Mr. Speaker, sometimes the representatives of the people are criticized for not keeping his electors well informed. In this house, as anywhere else, there are to be found partisans of "controlled economy" and other outside renovators who seek to do away with machin-

ery in order to relieve unemployment. I shall read an extract of an article published by Mr. Andre Liesse, the well known French economist, and in which are discussed these questions of "controlled economy," and the suppression of machinery, etc. I place on Hansard, knowing that it will dispel certain economic and social errors. The following is the extract of this important work published in the Economiste Francais.
Such is the case in industrial countries more particularly affected by the crisis. Hence come -in my opinion

budget difficulties. The economic depression lowers the tax returns and, there, where they weigh heavily, as in France, this additional financial burden increases the crisis. The improvident governments, swayed like their parliaments by the masses, have greatly contributed to this situation. Nobody is unaware of it, today. However, politicians responsible for the increases in the budgets, do not admit that they were wrong. They hope to entirely place the responsibility at the door of what some designate as "the anarchy of production." If the budgets do not balance, the reason is, that industry and commerce are not "controlled."
Controlled economy has, indeed, followers who harbour most pretentions notions. They wish to go to the root of the world's crisis. They advise as a remedy measures of intervention as old as those of taxes on the sale prices of food products and all commodities which sustain life. They acknowledge that the crisis is due to a too large production, taking into consideration the shrinkage of markets. They have somewhat abandoned the currency question, which at one time seemed to them of the utmost importance and was the object of their sole preoccupation. Machinery, the application of scientific discoveries to industry, worries them. A strange fact to note, the same discussions took place on the same word, more than a century ago; Sismondi has left us on "machinery" more thrilling pages than all those written, today, by the partisans of the "controlled economy."
They resort to the same arguments put forth by Sismondi, with the same error of judgment which the latter made during the industrial crisis which prevailed in England between 1818 and 1830. Sismondi had then to deal with a period almost violent in its technical evolution of industrial production. He thought the crisis would never end.
Those new inventions had thrown numerous workmen out of their jobs. Unemployment in England is a labour crisis which differs from the unemployment in other countries in that it is somewhat the sequel of the famous "Pauper Act" enacted to relieve pauperism and the result of which has been to maintain and spread it. Sismondi therefore concluded from facts he observed, that the introduction of machinery, in England, would lead, directly and irretrievably, the workman to pauperism.
In this he greatly erred as did Karl Marx who foretold, basing himself on a false doctrine, that social revolution would be provoked by the increasing distress of the workmen and wage earners, as a whole. Therefore, overproduction appears in the eyes of the partisans of the doctrine of "controlled economy" a

The Address-Mr. St-Pere
phenomenon which will continue-if it is not suppressed-to disorganize production and create anarchy in the economic world. What is, in their eyes, the true cause of the crisis? If we are to believe them, it is rationalization. But, rationalization manifests itself especially by the greater use of machinery. Machinery is therefore the main factor of the crisis. There is of course, beside machinery, properly speaking, organization-rational-of factories and staffs, also systematic work. This does not seem to disturb them, although the part played by the latter, also reduces the staff needed in enterprises. The trouble lies in machinery and they consider it the first cause of the crisis.
How are we to remedy this evil. We can hardly use repressive methods and punish inventors. For it was the very first method resorted to with great energy in the very early ages. Prometheus, the god of invention, was cruelly and longly punished. The necessities of war alone prompted Archimedes to make use of inventions on which he had worked. Petronius narrates that a Roman Emperor had the inventor of a light and malleable metal, which might have replaced gold and silver, put to death.
This proves that this preoccupation is not a new one. Although inventions continued to be looked upon with fear an attempt being made to smother them under the rule of corporations. Less than a century ago, Proudhon himself was much alarmed in seeing the spread of inventions. To guard against labour crises which they might create, he advised that machines and looms be placed in museums or in the "Conservatorie des Arts et Metiers-' to show the workman the new machines to be, by degree and wisely, introduced in mills and factories.
Today, we would have recourse to taxation to prevent or retard the application of scientific discoveries. The high priests of "controlled economy" would be the supreme judges of the necessity of using such and such machinery or such and such process in manufactures. With this system, the railway industry which replaced slow means of transportation, could not have made its appearance, it could not have laid its tracks or only made use by degree, of steam traction. And since it is a question of work and staffs employed, it is only necessary to compare the number of employees of railway managements with that of coaches to find out the truth. At present, the automobile is competing with railway transport. This is a question of fixing the rates of transport between the two systems. However, taxation must not be a medium of intervention to restrain the development of one industry _ of which those who would have full authority of "controlled economy" might fear the expansion. This is the socialist system. Thus to level fortunes and prepare the final revolution, taxation, while awaiting collective organization would serve to distribute wealth. One can imagine however, in connection with motor truck competition, more economical solutions of this problem could be found. It is probable that an understanding will be arrived at between the management of railways and companies of motor trucks on the bases of cooperation for the mutual advantages of both.
All these wrong notions have their source in the same conceptions. Those who adhere to them and wish to put them in practice, have
a belief and mystic faith in the economic and social power of the state. They do not think of the fact that it would be impossible for the men, chosen to look after the whole economic structure-for this must be the conclusion-[DOT] to fulfil this enormous task. Commissions and committees of experts would be appointed. One can foresee, by a few examples in the past, what would happen. Economic and social organizations are drawn on paper. Childish combinations are thought of which however, impress those who are unable to judge. What strikes us the most in these theories is that they prove among their authors a complete ignorance of the psychological and economic laws which have given us so many lessons since the war. It is true that one must be able to understand them.
The spreading of these theories contribute to the confusion of public opinion. They counteract the efforts of those who endeavour to enlighten this opinion. Never, perhaps, has it been more necessary to follow a sound policy of redress, and the latter must begin by convincing public opinion of the urgent requirements of the hour. We must immediately solve the public financial problems, balance the budget by sound means and not by expedients or doubtful trials. We must discover the true source of the evil. It will not be found in the scientific field of activities, or in their application, but in the errors made in the course of the post-war period and the crisis which it has created.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. ST-PBRE (Translation): Mr. Speaker, the article which I read before we took recess can be applied to the present situation in a number of countries. Our financial liabilities are heavy to carry. Taxation has greatly increased. The provincial and municipal debts have reached more than a reasonable maximum. Property owners, but especially those who have been thrifty in order to provide for their old age, are at bankruptcy's door. The world seems completely upset. To obviate all these troubles, let us have recourse to international cooperation, let us refuse to. subscribe to all tariff policies of isolation, and let us not sign economic agreements equivalent to a new kind of zollverein. In the course of the speech delivered by Albert Thomas, at the Labour conference, presided by the hon. Senator Gideon Robertson, the ex-president of the International Bureau of Labour made the following remarks:
In tile face of all endeavours of social justice, this world crisis raises at every moment the question of economic possibilities. How, then seek the improvement of labour and living conditions of the working classes, without first establishing in the world economic and norma1 order?

The Address-Mr. Milchell
The International Organization of Labour, has not the means at its disposal to create this economic order. This organization is not vested with the authority to command. It must therefore turn to those who have such authority; towards governments and competent international institutions, and request them earnestly not to defer the measures which are necessary to restore political, financial, monetary and economic conditions, which will permit it, the International Organization of Labour, to carry out its task.
It is in this sense that the conference through the resolution voted, has made a touching appeal to the spirit of decision of the League of Nations and governments, in the hope of a prompt realization of the measures susceptible of relieving the present depression and thus realize the development of the work of social justice prescribed by the treaties of peace.
Labourers and artisans of all classes, financiers and industrialists will find in a sound economic and social understanding the return to that prosperity that an egotism of low standard and the high tariffs have set aside for some years past. The salvation of nations, sir, rests in their interdependence well interpreted by those who have been given the mission to guide them.


Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, I desire at this time to make a few observations on the speech from the throne. I think the speech itself might be likened to the maiden's prayer, it relies more on hope than on positive action. But it absolutely misses the vital problem confronting the people of this country, the problem of unemployment. At the last general election it was generally understood that the leader of the present government said that his government would cure unemployment or perish in the attempt. The perishing at the present time is being done by the hearers rather than tby the gentleman who made that undertaking. I am inclined to agree with a member who spoke previously in this debate, that the government should carry out its solemn obligation to the people and meet them in conformity with the promises made in the last election.
The leader of the government also made another observation in connection with soap box orators who were going up and down this country. If he does not know I would like to tell him that the leader of the government in Great Britain, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, owes his rise to political power to the fact that he was once a soap box orator. The same might be said of Philip Snowden,

of J. H. Thomas, and of many other men who have reached eminence in the public life of the mother of democratic institutions. I do not know any better way of feeling the pulse of the people in this country than by going out and meeting them, even though it should be on a soap box. I am of the opinion that possibly even the Prime Minister of this country might have a better grasp of national problems as they affect the daily lives of the men and women engaged in agriculture and industry, he might have closer contact with them, had he early in his career done some soap-boxing himself. I appreciate the fact, speaking from experience, that the life of a soap box orator is not a very happy one. You are asked some very awkard questions at times whilst discussing the problems that affect your constituents. It might be well if the government of the day did a little soap-boxing and got away from this city, because after all is said and done the city of Ottawa is something like Rome and Athens, it is drawing tribute from the rest of the country. I do not say that in any critical sense, but it is a fact that must be recognized that to get a true picture of the problems and conditions confronting the people it is absolutely necessary to get out among them.
The first matter dealt with in the speech from the throne was that of the agreements arising out of the recent Imperial conference. I appreciate that they will be a subject for discussion during next week, but I would like to say this regarding them, and the approach to the very vital problems in connection therewith. It must be remembered that with possibly one exception previous Imperial conferences dealt with the legal status of the colonies or dominions as the case might be. In fact they were largely taken up with, might I say, a philosophical discussion of abstract legal questions. They ratified declarations that were generally in effect before the ratification took place. In connection with the recent conference, you have an entirely different set of facts to face. I am not at all worried at the stories you hear about scraps inside the conference. That is only human nature. I have been in many conferences over wages and working conditions, and though our problems were settled satisfactorily, we did not always get through those conferences without very deep differences of opinion. There is, however, one

The Address-Mr. Mitchell
lesson which I think the country might well take to heart; I hope that in future we shall not have the same amount of ballyhoo and the expectations raised in the minds of the people that we had in connection with the recent conference. If you have trade agreements to negotiate, it is far better to negotiate them in a calm spirit, somewhat after the manner in which the Australian agreement was negotiated in Honolulu, or the New Zealand agreement; because do not forget that Great Britain lost the American colonies over questions of trade and taxation. These are very delicate questions.
The agreements reached at the recent conference are in principle protectionist. They merely divert trade from avenues that have been built up, and notwithstanding the deep study that is being given to the schedules at the present time, it is absolutely impossible to pass judgment upon them until such time as the attitude of other nations in regard to them has been learned. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we are in for a period of what I might call international starvation, with restrictions being placed by one nation upon another, and in an effort to overcome those restrictions the various countries of the world are driving down the living standards of their working people and agriculturists. That is a fact which in my judgment we in this country should clearly recognize in our approach to the problems that confront the men and women of this Dominion.
The next important matter in the speech from the throne of concern to the labour men and women of this country is the position of the railways. It must be remembered that the transportation commission sat at a time when we were in the throes of an acute depression; had it been possible for us to obtain the observations of these commissioners in 1929, they might have been entirely different. The direct question might be asked of some of the members who sat on that eommisison, particularly those who are officers on other roads, what is the condition of their own roads? Do they not need commissions to look into them just the same as we found a transportation commission necessary in this country? I readily understand that major economies are thought necessary, but I would point out that these economies
are going to fall upon the shoulders of the men engaged in that particular industry. We are to have economies put into operation for the purpose of doing away with duplication of services. It is in keeping with the spirit of the times, in municipalities, in governments, federal and provincial, and in industry, to lay off the men and women engaged in these various institutions and industries in an effort to get from under. If that is deemed necessary in connection with the railways, I believe it would be well to pause a little until conditions are nearer to normal-if they are ever to return to normal-because it must be remembered that men who have spent the best part of their working life in the railroad industry, and who are experts in their particular job, will be thrown out of work to swell the ranks of the unemployed. Every man and every woman who is laid off in industry and commerce creates a problem in relation to their buying power in industry and commerce.
I was pleased to hear the observations of the right hon. leader of the opposition to the effect that labour should be represented on the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways. I do not know anybody who has more interest in the success of this great undertaking than the labour men themselves, and I believe that in the ranks of labour in this country there are men just as able to supply the directing force, and at the same time lend that human touch that we believe is essential, particularly in these days of acute depression, as can be found anywhere else.
So far as the St. Lawrence deep waterway is concerned, the constituency I represent is deeply interested in seeing this project become an accomplished fact. We believe that the forty millions of people who live around and in the vicinity of the great lakes should be given access to salt water. While in the navy it was my experience to travel extensively in many parts of the world. I found that where there are ample facilities for ocean navigation, development is advanced. In my judgment, transport by water is, and will continue to be, the most economical form of transportation. Apart from the money it will put in circulation, the much needed employment it will give to men out of work, and the added supply of power which will necessarily quicken the development of the eastern section of Ontario, I believe this project will promote
The Address-Mr. Mitchell

A summary indicates that in one week of 1931 there were 2,446 families on relief, costing the city $11,921.39, while in the corresponding week in 1932 there were 5,153 families on relief, costing the city $24,929.06.
My time is drawing to a close, Mr. Speaker. I did intend to quote from this very able study of relief measures in Ontario by Mr. Cassidy of the University of Toronto, but I have not time. I do believe, however, that unless there is some change in the very near future many municipalities throughout this Dominion will face bankruptcy. The present condition cannot go on. Our sources of taxation are so limited that we will have to receive greater assistance from the federal and provincial governments throughout the country.
In conclusion I should like to state that we are passing through a war, and I think everyone will admit that we are in retreat. Against us we have ranged the driving force of science expressed in mass production, and those people who insist on adopting the policy of sticking their heads in the sand must face the facts. That attitude is expressed in the following words contained in the speech from the throne:
The unity, fortitude and capacity of the Canadian people, without which all your labours would have been in vain, shall be now the foundation upon which, with cooperation and faith, we will build a Canada greater than we have yet known.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Humphrey Mitchell: Someone says "hear, hear," but I do not know whether he refers to present conditions or to the passage I have just read. In conclusion I should like to ask whether we are going to stifle that supreme gift that has made this Dominion what it is today, the willingness of our men and women to work and create. After all, our ability to maintain our credit is reflected in this very simple fact.
234	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) :: Mr. Speaker, my first word will be one of congratulation to the young man from my province who moved the address in reply to the speech of His Excellency the Governor General (Mr. Davies). While the hon. member is not of my political persuasion, nevertheless I am pleased that he shows promise. His speech was carefully prepared; it needed a little more enlightenment upon fiscal matters, but he may yet prove to be a creditable representative from our province. I wish also to congratulate the seconder of the address (Mr. Laurin), another young man of some promise. However, I must express the same regret as has been expressed by other speakers who have preceded me, that he and his colleague find themselves in their present company. Perhaps they may see the light at some future date and move across the floor of the chamber into the environment in which they belong.
I am entirely in accord with the remarks of my hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King). He spent considerable time in reviewing the actions of this government. While that review was comprehensive and covered a great deal, there are still many things which have been left unsaid with respect to this administration.
In replying, the leader of the government (Mr. Bennett) made his usual type of speech. I have read his speech with some care but I cannot discover any justification of the results obtained by his government. The results speak for themselves. If one had the time he could enumerate the many acts of this government since its inception and show that each has had disastrous effects. It has been a case of hasty action and just as hasty withdrawal. As far as I can discover, not a single act of the government commends itself as being in the public interest.


Mr. MANION:: What about the Imperial conference?


Charles A. Stewart: I had not intended to refer to that, but may I say to my hon. friend-


Robert James Manion: What about the Canadian National Railways?


Charles A. Stewart: When we are discussing that matter I will have a great deal to say about the very short administration of my hon. friend. If he is inviting criticism he will get it.


Robert James Manion: I invite it.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: What about the millions spent in western Canada?


Charles A. Stewart: May I say for the benefit of my hon. friend that in the past his party has been blind but now they seem to have fallen into dumbness. Nothing has been heard in defence of the policies the government has been pursuing.


Edward James Young: They do not know what to
say.


Charles A. Stewart: It is eight or ten days since we assembled in this chamber for the opening of the session, and we have had almost complete silence on the part of my hon. friends opposite. That silence cannot be because of a lack of criticism from this side of the house, particularly of domestic import.
The whole administration of this government has been in direct contradiction of its promises. Take unemployment, for instance. Did the members of the government not go from one end of the country to the other and proclaim in clarion tones that if they were placed in a position of authority, unemployment, which had become a national question, would be taken care of? The other day my hon. leader gave quotation after quotation from the statements made by the Prime Minister. In 1930, the Prime Minister in his own city deprecated the fact that unemployment was so rampant in this country and stated that if given the opportunity he would set up machinery to take care of it. Then he goes back in 1932, two years afterwards, and tells the assembled premiers of the provincial governments and the mayors of the cities of western Canada that unemployment is not primarily the responsibility of the federal government-a direct reversal of the clear-cut statement previously made to his own electors. How can anyone have confidence in hon. gentlemen who make definite statements on one occasion and then shortly afterwards take exactly the opposite position?
Then, adding insult to injury, the Prime Minister states that if it had not been for the leader of the opposition and hon. members on this side there would have been no interference with the progress of the Imperial conference.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Charles A. Stewart: An hon.
member says, "hear, hear," but I challenge hon. gentlemen opposite to name one occasion when any member of the Liberal party, from the leader down, said a word other than to hope that the conference would be a success. It ill behooves the leader of the government

The Address-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
to throw such a challenge across the floor at the leader of the opposition, who has been most sincere in his desire that the conference should be a success. Hon. gentlemen opposite would like the impression to go abroad that obstacles have been placed in the way of the success of this conference. The agreements have been consummated and no obstacle can be put in their way. We have had an opportunity of perusing their provisions and later will have a chance to discuss them in their entirety.
In 1930 it was considered a terrible catastrophe for this country to have one hundred thousand unemployed. At that time it was stated that this condition of affairs was the direct responsibility of the Liberal government and its followers. What were the gentlemen across the way going to do should they be put into power? They were going to cure unemployment or perish in the attempt. It would have been a godsend if every one of them had perished long ago.


Edward James Young: They have not even made
an attempt.


Charles A. Stewart: I want hon. members to understand that I mean perish politically, not physically. What has the government done?


Edward James Young: Nothing.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend says "nothing." The tariff has been increased to an unprecedented degree; industry has been stifled and in many instances destroyed; unemployment has increased to an extent never witnessed before. Hon. members opposite say that this is because of world conditions. We said that in 1930, and hon. gentlemen opposite went out to their electors with the statement that in a young country like Canada, with its natural resources still undeveloped, there was no reason for unemployment provided the government did its duty. Let this government do its duty in the light of the statements made on that occasion. Those statements cannot be denied and the government stands condemned and convicted of having misled the public as no government has ever done in the past.
I wonder if those hon. gentlemen who have got into the seats of the mighty and are in easy circumstances these days ever go out and mix with the unemployed. I invite them to go to western Canada, but if they cannot accept my invitation I will tell them what they would see tonight. They would see men sitting around a fire made of a few sticks of wood; men with no place in which they
can find shelter except in what is known in western Canada as Canadian Pacific pull-mans-the freight cars. Not one, not dozens but thousands of them, honest, intelligent, educated men sit around with tin cans and with insufficient clothing to keep themselves warm. It would rend the heart of any man who has any human sympathies to see what is taking place in the country today; and yet the leader of the government makes not a single attempt to provide assistance apart from what he himself condemned in the most emphatic terms in his own city of Calgary, namely, the dole. He offers no other provision, makes no other effort for alleviating unemployment, apart from the dole or direct relief as he is pleased to call it. That is all the sympathy he has with the seven or eight hundred thousand men and women in this country. That is all the sympathy they get from the government of the day occupying the treasury benches. If that is not an indictment of inefficiency and incompetence then I do not know what sort of indictment one would lodge against them. They said that they would call a special session and would increase the tariff in order to create employment, and that they would build up industries in this country. And. mark you, the great natural resources of Canada were at their disposal. These same gentlemen the government of the day, before they came into office, stated that if these natural resources were utilized there need be no unemployment, but that there would be work for all-work, not doles. Yet they sit there impotent and helpless, convicted on their own statements of being the most useless government that Canada has ever seen.
What about the tariff? The tariff was going to cure all our ills. Not satisfied with their majority, with which they could pass legislation of any description, and will pass, of course, despite what anyone may say, not satisfied with that authority, they wrest authority from parliament itself so that it may be exercised by the executive, unhampered; and duties are pyramided until we have, not protection, but exclusion in Canada. And they wonder why unemployment is increasing. They have penalized the farmers of this country to such an extent that it will take years for them to recover. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers of Canada today have no illusions whatever of what is being done to them. All they want is an opportunity to go to the ballot box and they will deal with these hon. gentlemen in the only way that they will understand.
Consider what the tariff has done to western Canada. Owing to the imposition of ex-
236	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
cessive tariffs that keep the spread between primary and secondary industries so great, foreign markets where we formerly sold our produce are now closed to us, so that we can sell neither our wheat nor our cattle; we cannot sell our mineral products nor anything else. The result is that you have fifty per cent of the population of Canada, engaged in agriculture, without markets; and these producers must have markets wide and varied if they are to exist. You must, of course, purchase if you are going to sell; but hon. gentlemen opposite say, "We will not purchase anything; we will not allow anything to come into Canada for consumption if there is the remotest possibility of its being manufactured in this country." Well, what has happened? I was talking to a senator from New Brunswick today, and may I observe in passing that some gentlemen from New Brunswick have been quite vociferous in defence of the Tory party. This gentleman is not a Liberal, and he told me, when I discussed with him farm conditions in western Canada, about the state of affairs in New Brunswick. He said, "You in the west are no worse off than we are in New Brunswick, because in the oldest rural settlements down there the farmers find themselves in a very serious position. They are unable to sell their products, and conditions are so bad that we have to deny the children of our community educational facilities, because we have to close our schools." What a nice thing for hon. gentlemen opposite to contemplate. That is the way their policies are working out.
When the Prime Minister said to the provincial premiers and the mayors of municipalities in the west, "Unemployment is primarily your responsibility," they should have retaliated by saying, "Yes, that may be; but your policies with respect to trade restrictions have aggravated this problem to such a degree that it is becoming unbearable, and if you persist in carrying out these policies you must take the responsibility for the consequences of your administration." There are some rights that belong to the provinces. What have tariffs done to the western farmer, Mr. Speaker? All you need to do is to go to the west and take up any newspaper, and what do you see? At least forty per cent of all lands are in the municipalities, and those are not municipalities that were stricken by drouth but municipalities in which there have been reasonably decent crops during the past few years. What is the situation to-day? These places are for sale for taxes.


Mr. STANLEY:: Provincial taxes.
fMr. C. A. Stewart.]


Charles A. Stewart: Of course,
provincial taxes.


George Douglass Stanley: Put on by provincial governments.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, by
recent provincial governments. The hon. member who interrupts was a member of the legislature in the days when we attempted to keep taxation within reasonable bounds, and I heartily agree with him that there has 'been an C'i'gy of expenditure there, totally unwarranted, as well as on the part of every other provincial legislature of Canada. But we are not discussing provincial legislatures just now, nor are they responsible for unemployment. When you deny the individual on the land the right to receive a decent return for his labour, when you do so by means of federal legislation, there can be only one result, and we see it to-day not only in the west but throughout Canada. The greatest agency for socialism in Canada to-day sits right over there. He will socialize the land of Canada to an extent that no one has ever anticipated. Yet hon. gentlemen hold up their hands in holy horror at the idea of communism or socialism. In the west to-day over thirty per cent of real estate in the city belongs to the municipalities, and if this continues in the rural municipalities it will not be very long until over fifty per cent of the lands will be in the hands of the rural municipalities. Is that socializing land? I charge this government and the leader of the government with having, by the vicious legislation which they have enacted in connection with the tariff, brought about that state of affairs.
I believe implicitly in private ownership and in freedom, and I am alarmed at the rate at which this process is going on. What else have they done? Another instance of the way in which they are socializing Canada is to be seen in the fact that by the imposition of these high tariffs, by the closing of avenues of trade, they are obliged to increase taxation. The Minister of Finance is a good friend of mine and I am sure his head must be aching. I sympathize with him in the task he has undertaken, for it is not a pleasant thing to have to come to parliament time after time and admit that the budgeting of the government does not bring the expected results. May I say to him that so long as he supports his leader in the imposition of these impossible duties, stifling trade, he will be in that unfortunate and unhappy condition. May I say to him that the policies of this government are a direct reversal of the

The Address-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
policies that were put into effect by the Liberal party in 1922 and which brought about such happy results. After nine years we were able to point with some pride to the fact that we had reduced taxation, and we had reduced the public debt by $273,000,000-
Mr. McGIBBON What did you add to the Canadian National Railway debt?


Charles A. Stewart: Mr.Speaker, the facts speak for themselves. In 1922 we had to find $6,000,000 towards operation and maintenance charges of the Canadian National; in 1928 they handed to the government $54,000,000 to apply on the interest charges of the government.


Mr. McGIBBON:: And they increased the
debt about a billion dollars.


Charles A. Stewart: We will
deal with that on another occasion. You have the transportation commission's report to discuss and we shall be very glad to discuss it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Hon. members must not interrupt. If they wish to put questions, they may do so with the permission of the hon. member who has the floor.


Charles A. Stewart: There is
no objection, Mr. Speaker, let them interrupt. But what is the condition today with respect to taxation. At every session of this parliament, and I suppose it will be repeated this session, we have had to increase taxation. It has been increased, I figure roughly, to the extent of some $40,000,000 already, and they have increased the public debt. Hon. gentlemen need be under no misapprehension; the railway has nothing to do with this. They have increased the public debt of Canada by $200,000,000. Quite a creditable record, isn't it? May I say this, and say it in all sincerity: it does not lie within the province of hon. gentlemen opposite to criticize the administration of the Canadian National Railways, for this government has gone into debt even faster than they did. Hon. gentlemen on that side sit smugly back and criticize the Canadian National Railways, that did not, when all is said and done-and I have not been an exponent of the Canadian National Railways-did not run into debt any more swiftly than the government which sits on the treasury benches today.


Mr. GOBEIL:: What about the two billion dollars you added to the Canadian National Railway debt?


Charles A. Stewart: Two billion dollars covers their whole debt. My hon. friend must be very badly informed. The rate at which hon. gentlemen opposite have increased taxation owing to the policies they have adopted with respect to the tariff can lead to only one end; how long can the people of this country stand that kind of thing? Hon. members have heard the record of the city of Hamilton, of the city of Toronto, of the city of Montreal. These are eastern cities; they are not the cities that hon. gentlemen opposite are so fond of complaining that we westerners come from continually bewailing our difficulties. No; the difficulties have struck the party opposite, and if they are honest and sincere and willing to tell the truth about the matter, they will admit they are thoroughly disturbed about the situation, as any thoughtful man must be.
May I say this one word about the provisions of the new agreements? There are more increases in tariffs-twice as many increases as decreases, as far as I can discover. And they do not in any sense compare with the favourable position that Great Britain occupied in the Canadian market prior to
1930.	Protection? Why we have protection gone mad. Exclusion? Yes, in the hope that it would benefit industry. And you have industry throttled and stifled, you are crucifying agriculture in every part of Canada. What a beautiful record of administration! It is little wonder that you have turned dumb and are afraid to defend it.


An hon. MEMBER:: We are reaping what you sowed.


Charles A. Stewart: God help
you when you come to reap your own crop! Mr. Speaker, if there was one single ray of light in connection with this administration we would have seen it. But there really is none. And the most tragic part of it all is what it entails in human suffering and misery. The loss in money does not mean so much. In war time we said that our regrets were not for the money spent but for the human suffering and loss which the conflict entailed. May I say to hon. gentlemen opposite that two more years of their administration will leave a trail perhaps as disastrous financially and in human suffering as the war left upon Canada. They may regard these as strong
238	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
statements, but think them over for a few moments; 750,000 men and women unemployed in Canada tonight. That is the registered unemployed; you can easily multiply that by two so as to take in the unemployed who are living upon their friends or their parents. I have a son at McGill university this year, and he was the sole student in his class who received employment. What were the rest of them doing? Not a single thing. Yet, how these gentlemen used to declaim about bringing the boys back from the United States and giving them employment in Canada! And they have to admit that there is not a job for any young man coming out of an educational institution today in Canada. If there is a job at all he has to give place :o some unfortunate married man with a wife md family to support.
The leader of the government went throughout Canada deploring the fact that widows and orphans were suffering, and he could not bear to see them suffer. I wonder where he is tonight. I wonder how he feels about it now, when the number is at least ten or fifteen times what it was in days when he was so solicitous about unemployment. When will he discover, and when will hon. gentlemen opposite discover where this suicidal policy that they are pursuing is leading them? All they say, through the mouthpiece of their speaker, the Prime Minister, is "Thank God, we are not so badly off as other nations are." Well, Mr. Speaker, I for one do not believe that there is any occasion for the extent to which unemployment has gone in this country. I charge the government with being directly responsible for the present situation. I do not say that the depression can be entirely blamed upon this government; no one will say that. It is world-wide in its extent. Every trading nation in the world of any importance thought that it was going to cure its difficulties by raising tariff barriers and preventing exchange of goods, and every one of these nations is in a similar position to that in which Canada finds itself. Has one hon. gentleman opposite an original idea for curing the present evils? Ai they can do is copy what other nations have done, and that is why our position is what it is today.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: What about free
trade England?


Charles A. Stewart: Hon. gentlemen opposite should nolt say anything about England, because they have brought this country into a position where it is ten times worse off than England, and have done that

within a period of less than twenty-four months. That is their record, and if 1 were in itheir shoes I would not say very much about conditions in England. If hon. gentlemen opposite have nothing constructive to suggest, then for heaven's sake let us get busy on the dole and do something for suffering humanity, for our own kith and kin in Canada.
But, Mr. Speaker, there are other ways of curing unemployment. I say, give these unemployed men work rather than doles. Change your fiscal policy and you will put one-half of them into employment in lose than six months, and the remainder will very soon be taken care oif in productive employment. But you will not do it. You will persist in this insane policy of protection which is destroying the vtery industries you seek to protect. The number employed in secondary industries in this country is not so great. We had about 800,000 people employed in secondary industries when this government took office, and now we have 800,000 out of employment, and a large proportion of them were engaged in secondary industries.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: There would have
been millions out of work if you had been in power.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Hon. members must not address each other. That is unparliamentary. They must address the Chair.


Charles A. Stewart: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I am always delighted to address the hon. gentleman who now occupies the position of Speaker in this chamber.
In conclusion, much as I dislike supporting policies of hon. gentlemen apposite, may I say that if they will introduce measures that will have a practical effect in reducing unemployment, they will have my hearty support. So far as the Imperial conference agreements go in that direction they will have my hearty support; but so far as they go in the opposite direction they will meet with just as vigorous opposition. That is my position, and I am not speaking for the Liberal party; 1 am speaking for the hon. member for West Edmonton. There is no excuse for the situation in which we find ourselves today, with 800000 men unemployed, and with taxation increased to an unheard-of degree. 1 do not know what Ithe Minister of Finance will tax further, but I do know that he will have to get more revenue. Every time that he puts on a tax and hopes to get some revenue, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryck-

The Address-Mr. McPhee
man) contrives to have an order in council passed thait prevents the anticipated revenue coming into the coffers of the country. No one can deny that the record of this government is that in two years it has increased the indebtedness of Canada by $200,000,000; that it has greatly increased taxation, and that unemployment is now wide-spread to an unprecedented degree. Is not that a splendid record of achievement by a group of individuals who have the responsibility of administering the affairs of Canada at this time?
I am amazed that some of the independent members of the Conservative party from the good old province of Ontario can sit quietly in their seats and put up with this kind of thing. I often wonder what happens in the quiet of their rooms upstairs. I should not like to use in public-I suppose it would not be allowed-the language which they must use in private, because I have some conception of the feelings of hon. gentlemen opposite. Throughout this debate they sit absolutely dumb. Possibly their hope is that when the provisions of the Imperial conference agreements are under discussion they will be given an outlet for their views. I do hope that they are given an opportunity then, because it is a terrible predicament for them to be in, to be sent here as representatives of the people and then to sit silent through the session without the opportunity of expressing themselves. Every announcement is made by the leader of the government himself on behalf of the 136 members who sit behind him, and when he finally turns around and says, as he did on one occasion, "Now you boys get up and vote,"-well, I have heard the Prime Minister on many occasions make the statement, "What a spectacle!"- and I can only say to him and to hon. gentlemen opposite when I think of them in that position: What a spectacle!
May I plead with hon. gentlemen opposite to do something constructive? Surely by this time they must have realized the utter im-potency of the remedies that they have applied. Surely they must realize it is time for them to right about face and adopt some of these Grit doctrines that they have decried on any and every occasion. Let them just try out those doctrines and see if they will not do something to cure the unenviable situation in which Canada finds itself to-day. That is my advice-take it or leave it. But if they take it I promise, irrespective of what other members of my party may do, that I will give such proposals my hearty support.
Mr. GEORGE W. McPHEE (Yorkton): Continuing the discussion on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, my first duty, in common with others, is to compliment the mover (Mr. Davies) and the seconder (Mr. Laurin) for the splendid presentation they have made of the case so far as the government of the day is concerned.
We have listened all this week, Mr. Speaker, to a terrific indictment preferred against the government of this country without one, single, solitary member supporting the government getting up in its defence. Some of us have sat patiently in the expectation that the western members who are supporting this government from the province of Saskatchewan, for instance, would rise in their places and approve or disapprove of the indictment which we have preferred against this government so far as western Canada is concerned. But as they have not disapproved of it, I presume that they are willing to take credit for the conditions that exist in Saskatchewan and throughout Canada today.
Canada, Mr. Speaker, like a great many other countries of the world, is suffering. We have an abundance of wheat. In the United States they have an abundance of cotton. There is an abundance of coffee in Brazil, an abundance of rice in China, an abundance of wool in Australia, and yet peeple throughout the world are starving, perishing, simply because they have not got these commodities. What is the reason? It is not a matter of overproduction; it is a matter of underconsumption. Why are not people in the rest of the world consuming these goods? Simply because they have not the wherewithal to buy them, and they are prevented by unsound tariff barriers from getting goods into circulation. There is not an economist of note in the world today but stresses that statement. I have read the views of Sir Arthur Salter, Sir George Paish, Professor Einzig, of the University of Paris, and Professor Soddy of Oxford university. These men, economists of high standing, all sound the warning that unless this world gets away from unsound tariffs, destruction will be the result.
Perhaps I may be permitted to place on record a few lines by Sir George Paish. Listen to this indictment:
The outlook of the statesmen now in control of the world's destinies with their historical background is undoubtedly a survival of the mentality of the statesmen who direeted the affairs of nations in the days when the world was in its infancy, and when countries were compelled by physical and other obstacles to be practically self-contained.
The Address-Mr. MePhee

And again.
Finally, the weight of the evidence proves conclusively that the nations one and all, cannot recover their prosperity or enter upon a new period of expanding well-being until trade between them is permitted to flow with complete freedom.
Then again,
All experience indeed proves that the road to prosperity runs in the direction of encouraging every nation to produce the commodities for which it is specially gifted and to exchange its products freely for those, whether raw or manufactured, which other nations are specially qualified to produce, and that just in proportion as this exchange takes place, trade expands and the standard of life throughout the world rises to higher levels. It is the disregard of this principle and the effort which the nations are now making again to become self-contained, that is bringing them to an extremely perilous position.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: From what page
does the hon. member read?


Mr. McPHEE:: From Sir George Paish's
latest book, The Way to Recovery.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: That has made Sir
George Paish a laughing-stock among economists.


George Washington McPhee: The Address-Mr. McPhee

to the firm in Portage la Prairie for whom he worked, but in spite of the fact that he had solicited the order on the basis of the latest price list he had been able to obtain, which was only a month or so old, the order was refused. In their letter the company said:
You will understand the situation as it is todav regarding getting granite from the old country. There is now a five per cent sales tax, and the government has seen fit in the last few days to put a ten per cent dumping duty on, making a 40 per cent duty on goods coming in from the old country. The price of Scotch granite is going up in place of going down.
This man lost the order for the tombstone because this government saw fit to increase the duty on Scotch granite coming into the country.
What has been the attitude of this government to the farming population? It cares nothing whatever for the farmers, the great producers of the land. That always has been the history of the Tory party. Let me verify that statement. In 1911 a delegation of a thousand farmers came down from western Canada to interview t.ho government of the day. At that time there was a stalwart Conservative in the house by the name of bii Sam Hughes. Page 7134 of Hansard of 1910-11 contains the following words of his which have never been denied or contradicted by members of the Conservative party:
Why sir, you would actually think it was this gang of leaders; this grain growers association from the northwest that came down here, the same sort of fellow we find popping up in blacksmith-shop statesmanship. Everyone of them -a Grit organizer and heeler; not the rank and file of the farmers of Canada, but the men who try to push themselves _ to the front and whose wives are at home wearing long boots and cleaning out the cow stables and the horse stables, while these fel ows are hanging around the blacksmith shops spouting statesmanship for the world over.
That is the record of the Conservative party as far as the fanners of this country are concerned. That is Toryism with a vengeance. But is that much worse than the treatment meted out to the farm delegation which came down to this fair city a few months ago? At least Sir Sam Hughes had the courage of his convictions, he got up in the house and said so. What about the Prime Minister of this country? What about the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) from western Canada, the back-bencher occupying a front position? Where was he on that occasion? Why did not he or some other member of the government come down and interview that delegation?
In 1930 the leader of the government stated that the tariff was to be the cure-all, that his

party was going to bring the farmer out of the wilderness with that means. I remember the elections very well. My opponent went even one better than the Prime Minister. He stated that the farmers of western Canada were not getting as much for their butterfat as they should be getting for their buttermilk, and said: "Put my leader in power and you will receive as much for your buttermilk as you are getting now for your butterfat" What are the facts? Never before in the history of Canada have prices been at such a low level as they are at the present time.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: What about the price of farm machinery?


George Washington McPhee: The price of farm machinery has not gone down as much as it would have had the tariff been reduced and not increased. So much for that phase of the subject.
I shall now deal briefly with the sub-amendment moved by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote). At the outset I will state that I am in sympathy with the principle of this amendment. There is no doubt that to-day the concentration of the wealth of the world is in the hands of a very few people. Next to the tariff, this concentration is largely responsible for the condition in which we find ourselves. This afternoon the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Yallance) read an extract from Thomas Carlyle which had been written about one hundred years ago. I should like to quote a statement by the same writer which might well have been written today. It reads:
Wealth has accumulated itself into masses, and poverty also in accumulation enough, lies impassably separated from it opposed uncommunicating like forces in positive and negative poles. The gods of this lower world sit aloft on glittering thrones less happy than Epicurus' gods but as indolent, as impotent, while the boundless chaos of hunger and want welters terrific in its dark fury under their feet.
Ten years ago in the United States there were 2,352 people who paid an income tax on incomes acknowledged to be over $100,000 per year; last year that number had increased to 14,701. Ten years ago there were twenty-one people in the United States who paid an income tax on incomes of over $1,000,000 per year; last year there were 504. Ten years ago there were six people in the United States who paid an income tax on incomes acknowledged to be over $5,000,000 per year; last year there were thirty-six. The figures for Canada on incomes over $30,000 have trebled during the past three years, largely as a result of high tariffs.
How long are the great masses of the people going to stand for this sort of thing? As I

The Address-Mr. Brasset
said before, I am in sympathy with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Macleod. I believe that the government will have to take charge of the issuing of currency and establish a central bank of discount. The great masses of the people are no longer going to be trodden down under the iron heel of economic tyranny. How can the farmer pay off the liabilities he incurred five years ago when the price of grain and other products was so much higher than it is at the present time? Something will have to be done by the provincial governments in the matter of the readjustment of debts and after that is done the federal government will have to take control of the issuing of currency, establish a central bank of discount and remove all tariff barriers. When that is done the people of this country will be able to go along to a greater prosperity.
Til fares the land, to hast'ning ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates and men decay;
Princes and lords may flourish, or may fade;
A breath can make them, as a breath has made:
But a bold peasantry, their country's pride.
When once destroy'd can never be supplied.
Mr. MAURICE BiRASSET (Gaspe) (Translation) : Mr. Speaker, I had not intended, at first to take part- in this debate, however, I deem it my duty to acquaint the house with my views on the subject matter, and which, I think, are shared by the majority of the people of this country, and especially those of my county.
I wish to appeal to the government on behalf of the Canadian people who have been in distress for more than two years. As the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Mar-cil) so eloquently put it, Canada has had to face many crises in the past. That of 1878 had been, up to this day, the greatest and longest which Canada had experienced; however, if we compare it with the one which has been prevailing for the last two years, the depression of 1878 is hardly worth mentioning. Throughout the whole country cries of distress and desolation are heard. Nobody works, nobody has any money. In all parts of the country, schools are closing their doors because the ratepayers cannot meet their taxes or the children find clothes to go to school. And who can tell what the coming winter has in store for us, the prognostics seem worse than those of the last two winters.
This session was called earlier than usual in order to consider the agreements concluded at the last Imperial economic conference. However, may I inform the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and his cabinet that
53719-10*
they have to solve problems far more serious and urgent than the agreements entered into at the conference. Moreover, the Prime Minister informed us the other day, that the results of this conference would probably not be felt for two, three or four years. Must the people of this country still bear up with their sad lot for three or four years longer, before being relieved? Or is this statement of the Prime Minister simply a forerunner to prepare the people of Canada for a future statement admitting that the conference was a failure? Although I do not wish to doubt the sincerity of the Prime Minister, I fear, however, that the government itself does not anticipate from this famous conference all that the people of Canada are entitled to expect. But admitting that the Prime Minister is in earnest-which, again, I do not wish to doubt,-is it not a fact that he should adopt more efficacious measures to relieve immediately the distress of the masses?
At the election, in 1930, two years ago, the right hon. Prime Minister, gave many pledges, and it is on the strength of these that he assumed power. It is useless to mention them again here; they were repeated so often in the house that the people of this country are familiar with them all. However, he also stated that unemployment, as it existed in 1930, was a national calamity and it behooved the government alone to remedy such a state. Elect me to power, he stated and I shall see that unemployment ceases. There was, however, very little unemployment then in Canada, and conditions, if we contrast them with those existing today, were relatively prosperous. Almost every one had work, and even the unemployed could secure work at times. Farmers found a ready market for their products; and fishermen could dispose of their catch at a fair profit. Prices were high and the people, as a whole, were happy. Conservatives, however, described the situation in such gloomy terms, and the future, under a Conservative regime, in such bright colours, that the Canadian people were finally persuaded to enter into that famous Conservative paradise. We have now been in it for two years. What has been the result? The truth is that, in 1930, the country was far more prosperous than it is today. When the Bennett tariff, the so called protective tariff, was put into force, we witnessed trade decrease and industries totter. And now, owing to this exaggerated tariff, which has cut off our trade with foreign countries, the unemployment problem which, in 1930, was purely a local question, has become a national one: national because it has spread

The Address-Mr. Brasset
to all the provinces, national because it affects our trade and industries. It was not in 1930, that we needed a saviour but now that we need one. Yet, what is the right hon. Mr. Bennett's reply, when we beg of him to do something to relieve the distress of the people? He answers: the Dominion government has nothing to do with unemployment; this question must be settled by the provinces and provincial governments. The relief to the distress prevailing in this country is not within our jurisdiction; let the provinces look after it. We have more important questions to settle. We convened a great conference, which has brought much glory to our Prime Minister, and we wish above all to have these pacts approved, even should the results not be apparent before three or four years. The Canadians are of little importance, our conference takes precedence. Is that, sir, the realization of the pledges given by the Prime Minister, two years ago?

In fact, this famous conference, even were [DOT]4 to give us tangible results-which I do not think-amounts to a series of treaties. If these treaties are to relieve the situation, why then did the government not apply itself to this task long before today, in 1930, for instance? For it is not necessary to convene an Imperial conference in order to negotiate pacts with the various parts of the empire. These pacts could have been agreed upon long ago and they would be in force today, without having to gather here all the delegates of the commonwealth, including an army of secretaries, assistant secretaries, agents, etc., etc., brought here at the expense of the country- at an enormous expense. The Prime Minister has laid on the table of the house the various agreements entered into. They will be discussed next week, by those better posted than I am. May I simply point out that they will in no way activate the trade in Canada; the effect will be to displace this trade to the benefit of the empire, but to the detriment of certain other countries. I wonder what has become of the famous motto "Canada First" which was one of the fundamental articles of the Conservative program in 1930. Canada will not increase her trade by one cent; instead of trading with France and the United States, we shall almost drain the sources of this country's trade in favour of the empire.
I read this evening in the Le Droit, an article which is as follows:
Washington 13	(P.C.).-United States exports to Canada may be reduced annually by about $75,000,000 as a result of the higher tariff rates on non-British products made effective in the Dominion under Imperial
[Mr. Brasset. 1
conference agreements. This is under the assumption that empire exporters will take full advantages of the increased preferences accorded them and that the United States producers will be unable to overcome the handicap by lowering the cost of production and other means. This estimate was agreed upon in informed circles here after a partial analysis of information received from the American legation at Ottawa as to the commodities affected by the agreements.
In nearly all discussions on the effect of the tariff changes on American trade, it is emphasized that the 1930 exports to Canada of $660,000,000 represent more closely "normal trade" than the $902,000,000 of 1929. Last year's exports totalling $395,647,000 are similarly regarded as sub-normal; likewise the low level of the current year's shipments. Exports to Canada in the first 8 months of 1932 were valued at $170,432,000 compared with $295,701,000 in the corresponding period last year, and $480,357,556 in the first eight months of 1930.
Then, sir, the loss we sustain in exports to the United States we will gain with the empire, but this will not be a favourable change for Canada, it will simply mean a displacement of Canada's trade.
There will, sir, soon be an election in the neighbouring republic. If, as everything leads us to believe the Republicans lose this election and the Democrats win, the latter will probably approach us and offer us terms which I suppose will be advantageous to us.
In fact, Mr. Roosevelt, the Democratic candidate, recently made the statement that if he were elected president of the United States, he intended to give his country a period of Liberalism. The following is a despatch from Denver, Colorado, dated September 16, last:
Mr. Franklin D. Roosevelt stated last night in the course of an improvised speech delivered before a group of democratic leaders of Colorado, that if the government of the State of New York, had been in the hands of the democratic party for twelve out of the last fourteen years, it was that "under the direction of Alfred Smith it looked after the welfare of the citizens." The democratic candidate to the presidency added that the country was entering into a new era of liberalism.
If then, according to the statement of the Democratic candidate to the United States presidency, that country makes reasonable offers to us, we will be tied down for five years with the various parts of the British commonwealth, and therefore unable to take advantage of the Democratic offer. It will not be possible for us to return to a moderate tariff, we shall have to suffer the consequences, and even if other countries, realizing the futility of exaggerated protection, return to a better conception of their interests, we shall be unable to follow their example, tied down,

The Address-Mr. Brasset
sewn, as it were, in the folds of a treaty which we will be unable to cancel for a number of years. I contend, sir, that this is unfair to Canada. The Canadian people have suffered enough without forcing them to bear another ordeal.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am informed that there is not a quorum in the house. I will therefore ask the clerk to count the members present.
On the count being made, twenty-two members were declared to be present.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: There is a
quorum.


Mr. BRASSET (Translation):: The Conservative government has often proclaimed that a high protective tariff was the panacea which would cure all ills, all the wounds of Canada. How can we explain then that the number of unemployed which amounted to only 250,000 in 1930, has reached 800,000 in 1932. This number does not include bank and shop clerks, those that we designate as the white collar unemployed which also forms an interesting class.
How does it happen that our exports which amounted to $1,208,338,430 in 1930, had dwindled to $617,243,023 in 1931?
How can we explain that our national debt, after falling off yearly from 1924 to 1930, increased by $200,000 in 1931 and 1932?
How does it happen that Canada, after having had a steady yearly surplus from 1924 to 1930, has had to register two huge deficits in 1931 and 1932?
How can we explain that during the period when thrift was advised and thousands of Dominion employees were dismissed, the yearly expenditure was increased?
How does it happen that the right hon. Mr. Bennett, after having won his election on the New Zealand butter question, acknowledges today that it is necessary to import millions of pounds of butter from New Zealand?
How can we explain that Canadian butter which sold 35 cents per pound in 1930, only sells at 18, 20 or 22 cents today? How does it happen that the customs revenues which amounted to $200,000,000, in 1929, are only $113,000,000, in 1932, notwithstanding an increase in customs duties? How are we to explain that the industrial production of Canada, since 1929, has decreased about $700,000,000? Finally how can we explain that the returns of the Canadian National railways have decreased $90,000,000, in two years?
These questions and many others would need to be answered. If the government were to reply, it would be by one word: depression.
ho doubt, the world crisis has largely contributed to the fiasco of the government's policy, but it is also certain that the absurd customs measures, exaggerated duties and impediments to trade and industry, have also aggravated the situation, and if we find ourselves today, in distress, we must place the responsibility, to a great extent, on those who, in 1930, pledged themselves to put an end to all the ills we were suffering and lead us into paradise.
We still hear the voice of the right hon. Mr. Bennett from the top of hustings proclaiming that there was no need for a Canadian to suffer from unemployment and hunger.
This was in 1930, and the Conservatives might contend again that they could not then realize what the conditions would be in the country two years hence.
We are now, in 1932, after two years have elapsed of Conservative rule. The Conservatives know what they are doing, they know what has been the outcome of their policy, last year, therefore, to meet the deficits, to prevent a decrease in trade, they brought down the tariff of Hon. Mr. Rhodes. That famous tariff was to put an end to our deficits and give us surpluses. The Conservatives were not taken unawares and they cannot contend that they did not know what to expect. The following is what I find, in the Evening Citizen, dated October 14.
Rhodes' Budget Estimate Fails Government had hoped that $40,000,000 extra revenue would be forthcoming Lessened importation of foreign goods and a corresponding decline in customs duties are mainly responsible for the revenue situation disclosed in the monthly statement today. The total revenue of the department in the six months was $99,120,093. Customs declined by nearly nineteen millions and excise duties by over four millions, but, against this, excise taxes increased by nearly sixteen millions. The net decrease was therefore $7,856,175.
Income taxes in the six months brought in $51,587,611, an increase of $1,866,543.
September revenues, amounting to $16,088,443 reflect a net decrease of $2,324,288.
The figures are disappointing in view of the budget estimate of 40 millions of extra revenue.
That is, sir, the Conservative government thought that they had good grounds to believe that according to the budget brought down last year not only would there not be any deficit this year, but the government hoped for a surplus of $40,000,000 over the revenue of last year. Again, they were not taken unawares, they knew what awaited them: they reaped what they had sown. Instead of a $40,000,000 revenue, there is a $9,000,000 deficit, to date. This means further taxation.
1 wonder how the hon. Minister of Finance
The Address-Mr. Brasset

will levy these new taxes? We are overburdened with them, we do not know where to turn we have no income left because of the Conservative tariff. The hon. Minister of Finance will be forced to levy new taxes and the Canadians will have to hear the burden. There is a 4 per cent sales tax; a stamp tax and many more which the Conservative government conceived. Notwithstanding all this. We must be further taxed not only to cover the $7,000,000 deficit of last year, but also to find $40,000,000 of additional revenue that the Conservatives had expected to realize this year.
It is pitiful, sir.
Allow me to give a concrete example of the result of the high tariff existing in this country for the last two years, especially as to its effect on agriculture. A few years ago, in 1929, and even at the beginning of 1930, farmers could obtain about 18 to 19 cents per pound on raw hides. These hides were then manufactured and put on the market. Leather sold about 40 cents per pound. Today, owing to the general stagnation of trade, the farmers find no sale for raw hides, or when they do happen to dispose of them they are paid only 1 cent per pound. Leather nevertheless still retails at 40 cents per pound. That is to say, m 1930, the handling cost at the tannery, was 20 cents, while today it has risen to 39 cents. The farmer is the sufferer and the manufacturer, protected cut of all proportion by the government, benefits.
The same thing applies to marine motors, in which the people of my county, who are mostly fishermen, are especially interested. These motors which sold, let us say, $250 in
1929,	at the beginning of 1930, still sell at $250. But, sir, the price of steel and iron has dropped 100 per cent. The iron and steel workers earned then 5, 6 and 7 dollars per day, and today they are willing, when they get a job, to work for $2.50 or $3 per day. Therefore, marine motors which, in 1929 and
1930,	sold for $250 should sell, today, at the most $125. Who benefits by protection, if not the manufacturer, and who suffers, if not the farmer, the fisherman and the workman.
In 1921, Canada shipped to the United States $21,600,000 worth of live stock. In
1931,	owing to the Hawley-Smoot tariff, they only shipped $700,000. In 1921, Canada shipped $1,600,000 worth of sheep and in 1931, it shipped the enormous sum of $240,000, due to the tariff of S3 per head on cattle. As to butter, in 1921, Canada exported to the United States $101,000,000 worth, while, in 1931, our exports only amounted to $2,000,000. One may contend

that it was the United States which barred our exports by their prohibitive tariff. My reply is that we were not slow in adopting the Bennett tariff. As I stated a moment ago, when our neighbours are probably on the eve of returning to a moderate tariff, we jeopardize our chances; prosperity will return in their midst while we will be compelled to carry on with our high tariff, and, thereby, live in stagnation.
I might point out that the same thing applies to the French treaty which was abrogated by this government. We are often asked the question:	What would you,
Liberals, do to relieve the situation if your party was returned to power? I shall answer the question, sir, and then close my remarks. We would make no promises like the Conservatives did, in 1930, and as they do today with reference to the Imperial conference. Should we be returned to power, we would simply apply the tariff of moderate protection of that great Canadian, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who gave sixteen years of unprecedented prosperity to his country. We would apply the same policy followed by the Right Hon. Mackenzie King and which also gave the country ten years of prosperity. That is what the Liberals would do to promote the best interests of the Canadian people, and I trust it will be soon.


Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, in saying a few words in this debate I intend to follow my usual course and be brief, because I know you want to go to bed fairly early to-night and I do not intend to keep you up.
In this debate, Mr. Speaker, as far as I have been able to see, our friends on the opposite side have nothing to say. They have no defence of the present government, they know that there is nothing in the speech from the throne for the people of Canada. They remind me of the federal Conservative members at the time of the last provincial election in Manitoba. The session here adjourned about the twenty-sixth of May, they all went back home and went into exile, not one of them went out on the platform that I know of, that I have heard of or read about, speaking in defence of the Conservative party in the province of Manitoba. I went into that campaign and spoke two and three times a day for three weeks. Everywhere I spoke I was given the best reception a man could have, and the only thing I talked about was the present government and the present Prime Minister.

The Address-Mr. Beaubien


Robert James Manion: Didn't you talk about Mr. Machray at all?


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: General McRae, yes.


Robert James Manion: No, the other Machray.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: No, I did not talk about Mr. Turnbull either. And the election in the province of Manitoba is the handwriting on the wall for my friends on the other side.


Mr. ROBINSON:: You have another guess coming.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: It is not a guess, it is the truth. And unless this present government changes its policy and gives something to the people that will help their situation and relieve the distress that exists to-day its situation will be far worse than that of the Conservative party in the province of Manitoba on the sixteenth of June last. I say to this government, and I say it in all sincerity, and I speak mostly for the rural parts of Canada-


Mr. SPOTTON:: A Daniel come to judgment!


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: -that if they went before the people to-day they would not come back with a corporal's guard from the rural parts of Canada. Not only have they not offered in the speech from the throne anything for the rural people or for the people of Canada as a whole, but when the farmers and the people of rural Canada come to see them they refuse to talk to them. A delegation of 3,500 farmers, serious-minded men, not knowing whether they are going to have their farms to-morrow or not, come here to see this government before the opening of the Imperial conference, to try to get some lead in order that they might be able to hold their farms. Not only does the Prime Minister refuse to talk to them, but none of his ministers will go and listen to a statement of their needs and what they have to propose, so that it might assist the government to bring forward something at the Imperial conference which would help the agricultural industry. I will say to our genial friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) that after that episode I went to several county fairs in my district, and if he had been with me and heard those farmers comment he would move from that side of the house right now. How they were insulted! How they were wounded by the Prime Minister of Canada refusing to talk to a delegation of serious-minded people, the backbone of this country! No man, Mr. Speaker, whether he be prime minister or governor general or king, has a right to refuse to see such a delegation of people who are living under conditions which
are affecting not only their mentality but their health and the morale of their families. Truly I do not know how any member from the province of Manitoba, one of the banner provinces of this Dominion-these rural members especially-can sit behind a government, behind a prime minister, behind all the ministers who refused to go and listen to these serious-minded people.
I have an advantage, Mr. Speaker, over a good many hon. members in that I can read the speech from the throne in both languages. I have read it in both languages; I have studied it in both languages, and there is not a thing in it for the people of Canada except the report of the royal commission on transportation, and that report you might just as well throw to the winds because this present government has done everything in its power to ruin the Canadian National Railways.


Robert James Manion: Nonsense.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: And it is ruining the
morale of the employees of the Canadian National Railways. The other thing that I see in the speech from the throne is that the Bank Act will not be revised this year. When the farmers in my district, the farmers in all the districts of Manitoba who had their 150 or their 200 acres of land ready for the binder, went to the banks to borrow $25 or $30 to buy their twine, what did the bankers say to them? "How do you intend to pay that money back?" "By the revenues and profits from the operation of my farm." And the bankers say, "You know you can't do it." And the bankers were telling the truth. What did these people do? Took two or three milking cows that were giving the bare necessities of the family, put them into a truck, drove into the city of Winnipeg and sold them in order to buy twine to tie their grain that was lying out in the field. Yet this government offers the rural population of Canada a postponement of revision of the Bank Act when rural Canada and the whole of Canada is in need of credit facilities more than ever before. I am not criticizing the banks for not lending money to the farmer, but if the banks cannot or will not do it, then let the government establish some system of credit which will do it. This country cannot run without credit. If the government is not going to establish some system of credit, some means whereby a farmer will be able to get a few dollars in order to take off his crop, we might as well go home and tell the people what I told them during the campaign, that there is nothing this government has done since it has been in power that has not been detrimental to the
The Address-Mr. Beaubien

agricultural industry. And the people believed me: in two ridings in which I spoke, including my own federal riding, two candidates lost their deposits and the others got badly trimmed.


George Spotton: Don't come to my riding.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: My hon. friend was
here with that farmers' delegation. What reception did he get from the Prime Minister?


George Spotton: An excellent hearing.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: That is because you are so big.


George Spotton: We received as kindly a reception as any Prime Minister ever gave any deputation, and we will tell the truth and the whole truth about that some of these days.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I made this statement
in regard to trade matters during the provincial campaign-


Mr. SPENCE:: Keep to the same subject.
Don't change it.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: Will my hon. friend
keep quiet?


Mr. STEWART (Lethbridge):: There are
just six Liberals in the house listening to you.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: My hon. friends opposite cannot listen while they are talking. If my hon. friend for Parkdale (Mr. Spence), instead of having a pen in his hand, would sit and listen to me, he would get something into his head, but you cannot get something into a man's head if he goes on writing all the time.
During the provincial compaign I made this statement, that every action of this federal government in regard to trade matters has been ruinous to the agricultural industry, and they know it themselves. We have recently had an Imperial economic conference. At that conference the British Empire had a chance to give the world a lead-and somebody has to give the world a lead.


George Spotton: What about you?


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I am giving it to you
if you would only listen. The bigger the man, the thicker the head.


George Spotton: And the smaller the
man-?


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I repeat that we recently had an Imperial economic conference, where an opportunity was afforded for the delegates from the different parts of the British Empire

to give the world a lead; and somebody has to give this world a lead in trade matters. But what did they do? They followed the very system which they have followed and which has ruined this and every other country in the world, which has increased unemployment by millions and millions, which has killed agriculture and all other primary industries, and which is ruining the secondary industries. I have gone through as many of the schedules as I possibly could. I confess I do not understand all of them, but I do know this, that the same fiscal policies which have been applied by the present government for two years are embodied in these conference agreements. Not only are they embodied in the agreements, but the country is being tied down to these agreements for five years. If within the next five years we want to change our tariff on any of the commodities mentioned in the agreements we cannot do it, because we have to maintain certain margins prescribed in the agreements. But what about our trade with the rest of the world? Do we not want to trade with the outside world? This government, not satisfied with putting a tariff wall around Canada and ruining our own country, are trying to ruin the whole British Empire by encircling it completely with a tariff wall. As a member of this house representing an agricultural constituency, and having the interests of the whole of Canada at heart, I am not going to swallow these trade agreements holus bolus just to please my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. The whole thing is a joke.
iSome hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: It is a joke; you know it is a joke, and you cannot get- away from it.


George Spotton: Sure.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: The hon. member for
North Huron (Mr. Spotton)-it cannot be South Huron or my hon. friend would not have been in this house-knows that the very fiscal policy that has been followed by this government during the last two years, and has ruined this country, is embodied in these trade agreements. Take the preference on wheat, for instance. What does that give to the farmer? When Great Britain cannot consume our wheat, what will the other non-empire countries do if you put this wall around the empire? They will simply impose high tariffs against our wheat, to the disadvantage of the Canadian farmer. No, Mr. Speaker, in this country and in the whole world there has to be downward revision of tariffs. The world

Questions
has to get away from this self-contained nationalistic madness, and instead trade with one another.
My friends .to my left talk about a depreciated and an inflated currency. I know nothing about it, but if it is going bo remedy conditions, let us adopt some different system of credit facilities with a view to bringing about a better relationship between the price level of farm commodities and the price level of other goods. When this country comes back to normal conditions, when prosperity returns to Canada in any degree, it will come only when the agricultural industry is on a paying basis. It will come then and no sooner, and every member of this house knows it. You cannot tell me that you are going to put agriculture on a paying basis by raising tariff barriers, thus increasing the price of everything the farmer has to buy and increasing his production costs. How are you going to make agriculture prosperous? I am not looking for very much higher prices for cereals. I do nolt suppose that we will get very much higher prices for some years, but if this government had not come into power we would have had a narrower spread between the price of goods the farmer sells and the price of the goods he has to buy.
I cannot understand the attitude of my hon. friends on the other side of the house, sitting silent all through this debate, unless the explanation is that they are ashamed of the action of the government, that they are afraid to say anything for fear that they will pub their foot in iit. I have been a member of this house for eleven years. I have attended every session and have listened attentively to every debate on the address, but this is the first debate of importance that I have seen-and this debate is more important than any in the past because of the condition the country is ini-in which 135 members speak through the mouth of only one man, and themselves remain dumb throughout the whole debate.
On motion of Mr. Garland (Bow River) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Manion the house adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Monday, October 17, 1932