1932-10-13

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

[Stage Direction]
Hon. WT. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) : I desire to lay on the table of the house copies of orders in council passed under the provisions of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act of 1932 and the Relief Act of 1932.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 2 to readjust the representation in the House of Commons.
He said: The purpose of this motion is merely to advance the bill this single stage so that it may be printed in English and French and be available on the order paper next week.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 3 respecting a certain trade agreement between the Dominion of Canada and the Union of South Africa.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Yesterday I mentioned to the Prime Minister the rule which apparently obligates the house in the matter of treaties affecting trade, to the extent of their being preceded by resolution. I do not wish to press any technical point, but perhaps my right hon. friend will give the house the reason why that rule apparently does not apply at the moment.


Mr. BENNETT:: The rule was rescinded in 1927 when the rules were revised. The rule with respect to resolutions preceding bills dealing with trade matters is no longer effective because it was thought undesirable when that revision was made. Inasmuch as the bill does not contemplate any increase in taxation but only a reduction, there is no reason why it should be preceded by a resolution. As I promised, I inquired of the clerk this morning and he directed my attention to the fact that the rule, or rather the custom, for it was a custom more than a rule, which had required trade measures to foe preceded by resolution, had been rescinded and did not appear in the revision. Under these circumstances I would ask for the first reading of the bill, I so move, seconded by Mr. Guthrie.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. SPEAKER :: When shall the said bill be read the second time?

Imperial Conjerence-Trade Agreements


Richard Bedford Bennett: Next week; it will be ready then. It is not intended that any of these bills shall be proceeded with until next week.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the bill be proceeded with before we have concluded the discussion with respect to the British trade agreement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. I would not move the second reading of the bills, unless with the consent of the house, until we had concluded the discussion on the British trade agreement, because it is probable that that discussion will more or less cover the general discussion with respect to these measures as well.



TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE IRISH FREE STATE

[Stage Direction]
Right	Hon.	R.	B.	BENNETT	(Prime
Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 4, respecting a certain trade agreement between the Dominion of Canada and the Irish Free State.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Right	Hon.	R.	B.	BENNETT	(Prime
Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 5, respecting a certain trade agreement between the Dominion of Canada and Southern Rhodesia.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: During the
Imperial economic conference certain volumes of statistics were compiled for the use of members of the conference-one on the trade of Canada with British Empire countries and the United States, another comprising statistical abstracts of trade with British Empire countries, and another relating to the trade of Canada with Australia and the other dominions. May I ask the Prime Minister whether copies of these statistical documents are to be made available for members of the house in connection with the consideration of these various treaties.
enable a copy to be available for each member of the house, but I will endeavour to secure complete copies of them and lay them on the table tomorrow, so that there will be at least one copy. If there are more available. I shall have great pleasure in laying them on the table.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I feel that they are very important public documents and if each member could be furnished with a copy I think it would be of advantage to all concerned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were prepared, like other documents, for use at the conference. It has never been the practice that such documents be laid upon the table or that they be made available for general use. If there are copies available for general use I shall be glad to make them available, but the type obviously has been broken up and we would hardly incur the expense of reprinting. There may be copies and to that extent I shall make them available.



QUESTIONS

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBERGE;
What amount was paid to the province of Quebec by the Dominion government as direct aid during the years 1930, 1931, and 1932?
Mr. GORDON:: 1930	 Nil
1931-Unemployment Relief Act,
1930:
Direct relief	$ 701,401 35
Public works	 2,488,909 62
Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931:
Direct relief	 Nil
Public works	 25,555 19

1932-Unemployment Relief Act,
1930:
Direct relief	$	3,237 59
Public works	 275,577 24
Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, and Continuance Act, 1932:
Direct relief	 1,001,115 77
Public works	 2,991,476 67
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Min-	$4,271 407 27
ister):	I will inquire at once as to whether	========
or not copies are still available. I do not	Grand Total.. .. $7 487 273 43
think there were sufficient copies printed to	========
53719-U

Questions


ANYOX, B.C., POST OFFICE
Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	What was the revenue, per annum, for the years 1929-1930-1931, of the post office at Anyox, British Columbia?
2.	What was the salary paid, and other allowances, per annum, to the postmaster at this point for the same years?
2.
Salary	
Rent	
Night allowance	
Postal note commission
Savings bank	
Government annuities..
Total


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.
Fiscal year
1929			.. $7,694 64
1930			.. 9,331 87
1931			
Fiscal year	Fiscal year	Fiscal year1929	1930	1931$2,614 05	$2.982 00	$3,557 00500 00	531 00	625 0020 00	20 00	20 004 95	5 55	6 5086	1 60	1 1337 30	100 00	148 26$3,177 16	$3,640 15	$4,357 89


RESIDENCE OF SENATORS
Mr. LAVERGNE:: 1.	What are the names of senators who having their electoral division in the district of Quebec reside in said district or in the division they represent?
2.	What are the names of the senators who reside outside of the geographic district of Quebec where said electoral divisions are located?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This question can hardly be asked properly in this chamber. The Senate would be the proper branch of parliament in which to ask the question, I think.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Question No. 14 would
more properly be asked in the Senate and consequently it will be dropped from the order paper.
Question dropped.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. DENIS:: 1.	Did the government receive a request from the city of Montreal for a contribution to carry out certain works in order to help the unemployed ?
2.	If so, what is the intention of the government as regards such a request to contribute?
3.	Is the government aware that the Quebec government undertook to make such a contribution providing the Dominion government undertook to do its share?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
' Mr. BARIBEAU:
For a copy of the orders in council passed on the 14th of February, 1914, and the 23rd

of October, 1917, allowing the Laurentide Power Company to build a dam at Grand'Mere, Quebec.

Mr. BRASSET:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Azade Bourque, as postmaster of Laverniere, Magdalen islands, and the appointment of his successor.


GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, October 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. P. G. Davies for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King.
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, as a socialist and soap-box orator sent here by the largest constituency in the city of Vancouver, both as regards area and population, I wish to say a few words in connection with the motion now before the house. The speech from the throne states that we have been called together at this time in order to give effect to the agreements arrived at during the recent Imperial economic conference. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) yesterday placed these agreements before the house and while he was speaking I could not help feeling that his words would do a great deal to raise the morale of those who were not well-grounded in the principles of capitalistic production.
We know it is one thing to make agreements of trade but another thing to find the means to purchase those things with which we might

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
trade. That is the difficulty with which the world is faced at the present moment. It is true that the channels of trade are restricted by high tariffs but even that would not be so bad if by any means we could purchase the things which are being produced in our own individual countries. As far as Great Britain and other parts of the British Empire are concerned, the position is that in each country there is an abundance of goods but the purchasing power of the people does not enable them to buy. The only solution which our business men seem to be able to offer for a condition of that kind is a further contraction of the purchasing power of the people. If in this country there was purchasing power for the purchase of commodities but such commodities were not available, then there would be some logic in making trade agreements and some effect might arise from them. But, if we cannot buy the goods which are produced here, how can we buy the goods produced somewhere else? I have heard no suggestion, either from the economic conference or anyone connected therewith, that there was to be an endeavour made to raise the purchasing power either of the industrial workers or the primary producers in the various countries. The contrary seems to be the case; every effort is being made still further to reduce the purchasing power of the people.
There is another observation I wish to make in connection with the conference. We must take into consideration the fact that because of this conference the total world trade will not be increased. If we are going to increase the trade between the various parts of the British Empire, then we will have to decrease our trade with other parts of the world. If we decrease our trade with other parts of the world, they, being under the same necessity as we to find a market for their surplus commodities, will be driven .to make trade agreements among themselves. The result will be that we will come back to just where we were when we started-we will have no more trade than we had before. That is the only logical result until such time as the purchasing power of the masses is increased.
In opening the conference the Prime Minister stated that the purpose of the conference was to cooperate in determining upon a plan by which this great empire might continue its leadership among the nations. I do not think that that is a very good reason for holding a conference. I thought the conference was held to improve the conditions of the people within this country and other countries which make up the empire, but in concluding his remarks yesterday, the Prime 53719-Hi
Minister referred again to a greater and greater empire.
As one whose ancestors have come from the mother land I have every desire that our relations with other parts of the British Empire shall be as close as possible. It may be prejudice on my part but I am convinced that down through the centuries we have developed a culture and worked out a technique of change which will possibly stand the world in good stead at this time when changes are bound to come. I believe that because of our membership in the British Empire these changes will be brought about with leBs violence than otherwise would be the case.
I am looking forward to more than a great empire and I do not think anything could express my point of view better than the lines of Tennyson:
Till the war-drum throbb'd no longer, and the battle-flags were furl'd
In the parliament of man, the federation of the world.
I hope for the day when the flags of trade competition as well as the military flags may be furled forever.
I think there was a greater reason for calling a special session of parliament than to pass the agreements arrived at during the Imperial economic conference. I remember that only two years ago we met in this house for the purpose of dealing with another situation-to end unemployment, and we are still far from having completed that particular job. The house has not been presented with any solution of this problem; perhaps the reason no mention was made of it is that they have no solution to offer.
I have very little to say with regard to the speech from the throne as it contains little outside of routine matters which would have had to come before the house in the usual course. However, I might say I was amazed when I read the second last paragraph of the speech. I could not understand how anyone could put such words into the mouth of the King's representative. I am convinced that as a specimen of unadulterated piffle nothing like it has ever appeared before in any speech from the throne. It is worthy of being illuminated and framed and sent to our various schools, unemployment camps and city councils throughout the dominion where it may be given a place of honour alongside " My Creed " which was sent out by the Department of Trade and Commerce some few years ago. What is the foundation for such language as this?

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
I rejoice that the wisdom of your steadfast policy of retrenchment and constructive development, which has ameliorated the hardships of Canadians-
We know of the retrenchment, but what constructive development, what amelioration and whose amelioration? Is it that of the unemployed?


Miss MACPHAIL:: The Conservative party.


Angus MacInnis: That may be so, but I
doubt even that. Then it goes on:
The strength of our financial structure, the resourcefulness of agriculture, and the integrity of industry have enabled us to take quick and profitable advantage of improved conditions.
What improved conditions and who took advantage of them? I admit that agriculture must indeed be very resourceful in order to keep itself alive at all under present conditions.
Let us however for a moment look into these advantages of improved conditions and see how they work out. Yesterday I received from the city controller's office of Vancouver figures in connection with unemployment as of June 1, 1930, June 1, 1931, and June 1, 1932. On June 1, 1930, the number of unemployed men, that is those on unemployment relief in the city of Vancouver was 351. We must remember that this was just at the time that we had the general election and that the Prime Minister and the rest of the Conservative party, who are now on the government side, were going throughout the length and breadth of the dominion calling attention to the serious unemployment situation. As I say, on that date the number of unemployed on relief in Vancouver was 351. On June 1, 1931, after one year of applying their remedies, the number had increased to 1,186, and on June 1, 1932, it had increased to 7,290. Those are the improved conditions. I suppose it was those unemployed who took advantage of the improved conditions that have occurred.
Let us go further. From September 8 to 12, 1931, the number of unemployed on relief in Vancouver was 3,434. These are the sworn figures given by the auditor for the city to the provincial government in connection with relief. In the same period of 1932 the number was 8,347 or about two and a half times as many. I noticed in the Vancouver Sun of September 8 the following statement:
Requesting that they be permitted to lodge in the city jail a delegation representing about 150 unemployed men waited on Chief Constable C. P. Edgett Wednesday afternoon after they had been refused aid by the city relief department.

Their plea was that they had no place to sleep and they urged Chief Edgett to permit them to use the cells.
"This is not a boarding house," declared the police head; "it's a jail and only persons who commit offences are given lodging here."
"Well, maybe we'll commit a few offences," stated a delegate.
"That is one way to get a free meal," said the chief as the delegation left his office to report the result of the conference to the crowd outside police headquarters.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Those are the changed conditions.


Angus MacInnis: They are the improved conditions.


Edward Joseph Garland: I hope they are proud of them.


Angus MacInnis: No doubt they are. Let me give some more figures from the city of Vancouver. The expenditure on unemployment relief for the four weeks ending August 31, of this year, was $151,085, while in the same period of last year it was $60,372. On Monday of this week I mentioned another situation that was arising in connection with unemployment and that is the impossibility of paying rents out of the amount of relief that the unemployed are receiving at the present time. The unemployment relief amounts to only approximately $15 a month with $2.50 for each child. I understand that while only $2.50 is allowed for each child of those who are unemployed, in connection with the Doukhobor children who were removed from their parents who were sent to the penitentiary, the sum of $4 a week is allowed for each child. Therefore if our unemployed who have children want to get better sustenance for their children, they will have to commit some crime.
Last year the expenditure for rent that the city of Vancouver had to pay amounted to only $11,280. This year from the first of the year to August 31 the amount paid amounted to $82,541, so that there is not very much improvement. But let us take the situation as a whole, that is as it represents the world at large, and see what we find there. If there is any value in the statements from which I shall quote, you will find conditions are no better but possibly worse than they are shown in the statements I have given concerning the city of Vancouver. In the October number of the Commerce of the Nation. A Magazine for Business Men, there is an article by Sir Arthur Shirley Benn, Bt., K.B.E., M.P., president of the Federation of Chambers of Commerce of the British Empire. Speaking of world conditions. Sir Arthur Benn says:

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
Nothing is more depressing than to survey-today the markets of the world. Everywhere one is faced by the same steady contraction,- not of potential demand but of the ability to purchase. According to the economic committee of the League of Nations between twenty million and twenty-five million persons in the world are now without work, and the value of international trade is only one-half or perhaps less than half, what it was in the first quarter of 1929.
Yet we are told that we are taking advantage of improved conditions. He goes on further, and this is the cure for unemployment that was presented to us in 1930:
Ever growing tariff walls for some time disguised the true situation. Everyone said: "If only we can reduce our cost of _ production then we can sell in spite of the tariff.
Yes, but they did not realize that in reducing the cost of production they were at the same time reducing the ability to purchase. He continues:
The departure of the United Kingdom from the gold standard and the rapid worsening of the crisis during the last few months have at last convinced many people that there is some deeper underlying cause. Of course, Sir Arthur Benn made -that last statement without knowing the temper of those on the government side of the house. At least, they have shown no indication of being aware that there are deeper underlying causes at the present moment than even tariffs can remove.
He goes on further; after quoting the figures of trade for most of the world, he says:
These figures are characteristic of the experience of the majority of countries in the empire and outside it. What was true of the United Kingdom's exports in 1931 was true of practically every other trade movement, and it is plain for all to see that the world position has become much worse in the first half of this year.
The world position includes that of Canada, and undoubtedly that has become much worse during the first half of this year.
The nations are in fact clearly heading for disaster unless something is done, and that very quickly.
Now that is the statement, not of a socialist, not of a communist, not of a soapbox orator, but of the president of the Federation of British Industries. And similar statements we have been making, not only this year and last year, but for many years, because we realize, on analysis of capitalistic production, that it carries within itself the germ of its own destruction, and that it would inevitably come to the position it is in at the present time.
Dealing with unemployment, I am quite convinced that it is a difficult question, and I am further convinced that it cannot be
definitely settled or abolished within the ambit of capitalistic society. Unemployment is as essential to capitalism as reserves of any other raw material. The difficulty now is that unemployment has come to such a stage that large numbers are definitely and continually unemployed, and therefore have to be fed out of the profits of industry. I am convinced that unemployed men cannot be adequately provided with either work or maintenance out of revenue raised by taxation, because through unemployment the created wealth from which taxes are raised is constantly diminishing, and on t'he other hand the number of unemployed is continually increasing. Under such conditions the time when we shall reach the limit of taxation is not far distant. I think then, if the government cannot say when business expansion is to begin, it should start immediately to organize the economic life of the dominion so as to provide work and maintenance without creating debt. The present handling of the unemployment situation is a disgrace to our Christian civilization. In a country that is almost overwhelmed with the magnitude of its production an ever-increasing number of our people are receiving less and less of the essential things of life. Now we are told that this is being done deliberately, in order that we may not "undermine that high courage, that resourcefulness, the ability of our citizens to emerge out of these conditions strengthened by trials as by fire."
However, that may be carried a little too far. I have here a report of a committee that was appointed by the Vancouver Council of Social Agencies in the earlier part of the year. This is an organization of business men, men who have given attention not only to business questions but to social questions as well. They make suggestions in connection with the unemployed that I would ask hon. members, and particularly the government members, to take note of. In formulating their recommendations the committee said they had been guided by the following considerations :
(1) That the majority of homeless men dealt with are at present not of the vagrant or hobo class, and in normal times work whenever work is available; (2) that the proportion of professional beggars or derelicts amongst them is small; (3) that there is a real danger of members of the first class becoming members of the second.
I would like to draw that to the attention of the house and say that reducing the amount of relief in order to increase the courage of the unemployed may have that very effect, and that to increase their courage may be very dangerous to the existing order of things.

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
(4) That the first class are integral parts of our economic structure, and the second are social and economic liabilities.
Now I wish to make further brief quotations from this report:
Your committee is of the opinion that in general the attitude of the unemployed in these most difficult times has been worthy of much commendation, and that it is the part of wisdom that those in authority should treat them in such a way as to maintain and strengthen them in their fortitude and courage by kind and intelligent interest in their needs.
But they are not getting that kind and intelligent interest.
Notwithstanding your committee is of the opinion that the temper of the unemployed and their attitude to society as a whole "will become increasingly violent and anti-social if those immediately responsible for caring for them treat them in such a way that the unemployed feel that they must in their own interest be antagonistic and grasping rather than cooperative and anxious to help themselves in any way possible.
I would like respectfully to draw that to the attention of the government.


Edward Joseph Garland: Who is
that signed by?


Angus MacInnis: Signed by the executive
director of the Vancouver Council of Social Agencies.
The Prime Minister in his address on Monday evening referred with righteous indignation to communists and socialists and soapbox orators. I will quote his words:
There may be scattered throughout the country soap-box orators, communists and socialists who will endeavour to arouse the passions and prejudices of the people who will carry to them the tale of new nostrums and remedies that will cure all the economic evils of the day.
Now surely, in the short space of two years the Prime Minister himself has not forgotten the promises he made during the election of 1930. Who offered the nostrums at that time,
I would like to know? And the proof positive that these were nostrums is seen in the result. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister promised everything-work for all who wanted it, bridges and highways, railways and waterways, pensions for everyone-and those were only a few of the things that he promised. Let me tell him that the Socialist party never promised anybody anything. We have simply tried to analyze society as we have found it, and we have pointed out to the people that it is they who produce the wealth of the world, and that there is no reason except their owm stupidity why they should not own it; and that, Mr. Speaker, we shall continue to do whether or not it meets with the approval of

the Prime Minister. Furthermore, we have always assigned the same cause for unemployment and for most of the other economic ills which afflict human society-that is, capitalism. But the Prime Minister's reasons for the economic conditions which confront this country change with the times. In 1930 the conditions were caused by Liberal misrule. Let me quote his own words, taken from the Montreal Gazette of June 27th. He said:
Unemployment has become "a national plot)!ciit in Canada. It is the direct result of nine years of unsound economic policies applied by Liberals under Premier King.
Not only did he give that as the cause for unemplojunent that year, but he went further and pointed out what was the first duty of a Canadian government. He said:
-and the King government cannot escape the charge of having neglected to realize that the nrst duty of the Canadian government is to provide work for Canadians.
I would like to ask this question: Is it the first duty of the Canadian government to provide work for Canadians only at a time when there is a small number of unemployed and not when there is a very great number? If to provide work for Canadians is the first duty of the Canadian government, surely it is very much more imperative to-day to provide work than it was in 1930, and I would suggest that the Prime Minister and his government seem to be falling down in discharging what the Prime Minister himself said was the first duty of a Canadian government.
In 1931, according to the Prime Minister, our economic conditions in Canada were the result of world-wide conditions. In 1932, in the spring session, the Prime Minister said that our conditions were caused by Great Britain going off the gold standard.


Edward Joseph Garland: And Russia.


Angus MacInnis: Of course, Russia was always a cause. I was wondering before I came down to Ottawa for this session what cause the Prime Minister would assign this year.
I knew it would not be the same as in other years. I now find that the cause is psychological. When I heard him say that, I was reminded of a story I heard of a woman and her little son who, walking through a field, saw a goat coming towards them. The young lad got behind his mother's skirts, and she said to him, "Jimmie, I am ashamed of you. You know that that goat won't hurt you." "Yes, mother," the little boy replied, "I know that the goat won't hurt me, and you know it, but the goat does not know it." Well, if the cause is psychological, as the Prime Minister

The Address-Mr. McIntosh
says, we do not know it and we cannot realize it so long as there is an abundance of the means of life in this country.
The group to which I owe allegiance in this house has always pointed out that our economic conditions are the result of the system under which we are living, and consequently that we cannot expect any improvement in those conditions until we have a change in that system. I would like in this connection to quote very briefly from an authority of which the Prime Minister himself approves, because in quoting from him last year the Prime Minister said:
That is the firm and considered conviction of one, who having had perhaps greater opportunities than any other, being in the very centre of the world movement, is able to express an opinion of value.
Sir Arthur Salter is the authority to whom he was referring and from whom I now wish to quote. In his recent book, Recovery-The Second Effort-at page 239 Sir Arthur Salter says:
The defects of the capitalist system have been increasingly robbing it of its benefits. They are now threatening its existence. A period of depression and crisis is one in which its great merit, the expansion of productive capacity under the stimulus of competitive gain, seems wasted:	and its main defect, an increasing
inability to utilize productive capacity fully and to distribute what it produces tolerably, is seen at its worst. And, in the mood of desperation caused by impoverishment and unemployment, the challenge of another system becomes more formidable. No one can expect that even if we get through now without disaster, we can long avoid social disintegration and revolution on the widest scale if we have only a prospect of recurring depressions, perhaps of increasing violence.
He goes on:
We have before us only the alternatives of collective leadership, collective control, or chaos -not, indeed, quite mutually exclusive; for in practice we shall have something of all three. We must do our best to eliminate the third, and make the best mixture we can of the first two. For this is no simple choice between two alternatives: "Hands off industry by the politician" or "Leave it to the government"; "private enterprise" or "state control"; "capitalism" or "communism." We evade our intricate and complex task if we think it can be solved by slogans instead of reason.
All that we have been asking is that we apply reason and intelligence to the economic conditions of the day. The Prime Minister tells us-he stated at the opening of the economic conference-that we can have no national economic plan in this country because it affronts our ideas of individual rights and liberty. However, I would like to point this out, that every imperial economic conference and every international economic conference
or any other economic conference that may be called is an attempt to arrive at some conclusion which may be carried out by some plan. If, after we have come to such a conclusion, we leave the functioning of the economic factors in our economic life to the whim and caprice of private individuals who will manipulate our productive system for their own gain, we can have nothing and we can expect nothing but the chaos which we find at the present moment.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker, in rising to continue the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the thrcne and the amendment thereto, may I say that the present speech from the throne is very much like the ones we have had from this government from year to year. I understand that constitutionally the Prime Minister has to take the responsibility for writing the throne address, and after that has been done, according to modern constitutional practice it is submitted to the cabinet sitting collectively. That submission, according to history, is usually made in the cockpit, or the treasury department, as we call it. After the legislative portions of the speech have been settled and the causes of summoning parliament have been thus stated, compliments and congratulations and advice to members are linked up with the main reasons for convoking parliament. We have heard that in days gone by the speech from the throne was sometimes read twice by the sovereign. But I could not think it would be necessary to read this one twice; I think perhaps once would be enough. We might also say that the speech from the throne is simply an exchange of courtesies between the crown and parliament, and when we say that and say it contains causes for the summoning of the House cf Commons and gives hon. members an idea concerning the legislation to be presented to parliament during the session, we have summed up in a few words the importance of the address, so far as it concerns this parliament and the Canadian people. Our effectiveness in parliament depends on what we do with legislation mentioned in the address and cur attitude towards the outstanding problems of nationhood. If we do what ought to be done, then the summoning ol parliament and the work done in the house will be a credit to us. If as hon. members in this chamber we do not carry out that duty, we are not acting squarely towards our electors or towards other parts of the Dominion.
There are really three main divisions in the speech from the throne each of which is of imnortance nationally. First we have

The Address-Mr. McIntosh
those sections relating to timely legislative measures effective within the country. Second, there is that part of the address dealing with an important empire question; another part concerns an international problem of some significance. Those portions of the address which bring before our minds the important business of purely Canadian legislation to be considered are the report of the royal commission on railways and transportation, the committee appointed by order in council to consider the operation of the pension act, the question of unemployment, the harvest and crop failure conditions in western Canada, the redistribution bill, and the extension of Canadian bank charters for one year.
The empire question, one of special significance which is to be considered, analyzed and -if we think it important enough-ratified, consists of the agreements drafted at the Imperial economic Conference held in Ottawa last summer. The international problem to be dealt with during the session when the house reassembles after the New Year, concerns the international waterways. That matter however, may not be considered for a number of years.
As I have said, the speech from the throne sets forth certain compliments, congratulations and advice to hon. members of the house. In that section of the document, we have an expression of view given to the effect that although the depression is weighing heavily upon all classes in the community, there are definite signs that the acuteness of the condition is disappearing. Mr. Speaker, I think that is hardly correct. Some hon. members may believe the depression is disappearing, but it may be disappearing in only very small proportions. For instance, we say that all the land is moving seaward, that there is an imperceptible soil drift towards the sea, that the silt of the maritime provinces, central Canada, the prairies, and the mountains is slipping slowly but steadily towards the sea. That is perfectly true. Taking a long range view of the matter, we find the statement is a fact. That is admitted by those who study geogology and geography in a comprehensive manner. We know, however, that so far as the gigantic upheaval in the mountainous section is concerned, the change is taking place very slowly. In the western region of Canada are the Rocky mountains, that section of our country which forms an important economic problem, affecting the freight rates of both railway companies. So far as differential freight rates are concerned, Canada would be better served if those mountains FMr. McIntosh.]
disappeared much more quickly than their present motion will allow.
The same thought may be applied to the condition of unemployment, an upheaval of an economic character. To say that the upheaval, although acute, is disappearing, and not be able to prove that it is disappearing, does not mean very much-nothing in fact. In Canada, unemployment is still a very important problem, and it will require all the ability of the Canadian people to cope with it, to solve it, and to bring relief to thousands upon thousands of our workless in the immediate future.
The speech from the throne contains a further statement that the government members in the house-I believe it refers to them, because they are in the majority-have followed a policy of retrenchment and constructive development. I fail to see where there has been any such policy of retrenchment. During the last year the national debt of Canada has not been retrenched; on the contrary, there is an addition to it of over $100,000,000. That is not retrenchment. Retrenchment. is a Liberal policy; throughout history it has been a Liberal principle. The Liberal party has stood for retrenchment, peace and reform, and when we talk about retrenchment, there must be facts to back up our statements. It may be that retrenchment carried to an advanced degree, would not at the present time be a wise policy. Aside from that, however, I am really challenging the statement contained in the speech from the throne, and stating that it is not according to fact.
Further, I fail to see where there has been any constructive development. Certainly I can see plenty of destructive development. Then, towards the end of the speech from the throne there is the statement that our financial structure has strength, our agricultural industry has resourcefulness, and our industry has integrity. Were I writing that paragraph, I should admit, of course, that our financial structure has strength. In one sense of the W'ord, it has stood the strain. I do not wish hon. members to think that I do not challenge certain aspects of our financial structure, but I wish at the same time to leave the impression that as a Canadian I am thankful it has stood the strain and storm of economic depression. Hon. members on this side, however, do not admit that it is perfect; we do not admit that it cannot be modified in such a way as to be more beneficial to the citizens of Canada. Instead of referring to the resourcefulness of agriculture,

The Address-Mr. McIntosh
and the integrity of industry, I should have referred to the integrity of agriculture and the resourcefulness of industry, because we know that industry has been resourceful. Industry has always been resourceful in getting more and more protection; it has always been anxious to get greater tariff privileges from the government, and it has not been willing to stand on its own legs and fight out its own battles like those men and women who have been engaged in agriculture since confederation. So, if there is any integrity in our industrial structure in Canada, I should say that integrity belongs to that great industry of agriculture-to the men and women on the land.
Then at the close of the speech from the throne we find the Prime Minister, through the representative of the king, telling the people of Canada that the Canadian people possess qualities of unity, of fortitude, of cooperation and of faith. We know they have; we know that if they had not had those qualities the history of Canada would not read as it does today. They have stood nobly by, and developed the Dominion, and it is upon those qualities we will depend in years to come. I should say that statement, even in a speech from the throne, would be all right if we were governmentally to grasp the significance of those qualities. I wonder if hon. members realize the significance of the prayer of the Prime Minister as it appears in the closing paragraph of the speech from the throne, a paragraph in which he commends Canada to divine Providence. While passing the Y.M.C.A. in this city this morning, I noticed a signboard which reminded me of the reference to faith as it appears in the speech from the throne. That sign stated that faith created work, and industry-that means that it creates business, progress and prosperity-and that prayer of the right kind will call down the blessings of Providence. The signboard stated further that love was a worker of miracles. The thought occurred to me that probably the Prime Minister had missed the most important quality. We see that he has touched upon cooperation, fortitude, unity, and the capacity of the Canadian people; he even resorted to terms of supplication on behalf of Canada. But, he did not mention that great quality of	lovecharity the opposite of exploiting greed. Because of the lack of the quality of love interprovincially and otherwise, between capital and labour, between agriculture and every one of the other industries of Canada, and
between this government and the people of Canada-because this government is not animated by those sterling qualities of faith and prayer and love-we find that the speech from the throne is politically sterile. And if we scan that speech to find out what we are legislatively going to do this fall and after Christmas, I think we shall come to the conclusion that apart from a railway bill and some trade agreements which we have been called upon to ratify there is not much of a program before us.
May I now compliment the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The mover comes from a western riding, the constituency of Athabaska, which borders my own riding to the northwest; and in extending him this compliment I may say that I was pleased to know that a young member of the Conservative party from western Canada had been honoured in being called upon to move the address. We are told in history that the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne must belong to the landed interest, and it is in keeping with precedent in the old land that the seconder should belong to the commercial and mercantile classes; and they are supposed to be in full dress or uniform when delivering their orations. But as I looked across the floor when our friends, the hon. member from the western riding and the hon. gentleman from a Quebec riding, were respectively moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I did not observe that they were in full dress or uniform. I did notice, however, that their speeches, when I read them afterwards, were in full Conservative garb. They were wholly yea, entirely in Conservative uniform, and they were certainly voicing sentiments in behalf of the Conservative party in Canada whether or not they spoke for the people in each of their constituencies in western and eastern Canada. I have wondered since why it is that, following the eloquent speeches to which we listened from the mover and the seconder of the address, hon. gentlemen to the right of Mr. Speaker have done nothing; they have not contributed to the debate since the two hon. gentlemen spoke the other day. Even yesterday, when the imperial trade treaties were brought down, there did not seem to be any enthusiasm on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite, and since parliament assembled a week ago today we have seen largely empty benches across the way. Indeed, about the only speeches we have had from that side have been from the Prime Minister and from the mover and seconder of the address in reply

The Address-Mr. McIntosh
to the speech from the throne. I trust that from now on there will be a change and that hon. gentlemen opposite will tell the people of Canada just what they think about this speech from the throne. I hope that they will give us some assurance that efficient and up to date legislation may be expected from the party they support, though silently, on behalf of the Canadian people.
If I may pass now from discussing the utterance of the representative of His Majesty in Canada, may I state that in 1930 the Conservative party electorally went to the people of Canada and, in an agricultural sense, said they stood for four important policies. One was the fostering and development of the live stock, dairy and agricultural industry. That was one objective they had. Now, Mr. Speaker, when you put forward an objective you are expected to stand by it through thick and thin or give a reason for your departure from it.


An hon. MEMBER:: We are doing it.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Before I get through I
will show you just how you are doing it. The second policy for which they said they stood was the stabilization cf economic conditions and freedom from the manipulation of tariffs at home or abroad. Fancy that. The third policy they enunciated in this connection was the development of interprovincial trade and the finding of foreign markets. Then, as a climax to the eight pledges they gave the people of Canada, they said that there would be protective compensating adjustments to make these policies beneficial to all parts of Canada.
Here we have four definite pledges which the Conservative party gave to the people of Canada in 1930 two years ago. They appealed to the people, and the Canadian electorate took them at their word and sent them back to power, to occupy the seats of the mighty. What are the facts now? The hon. member for Athabaska, when moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne a few days ago, waxed eloquent about the amount of trade we were carrying cn, the amount of wheat and barley wTe were selling, the amount of live stock and so forth. But, Mr. Speaker, quantity of trade is never the important thing; the important thing in trade is always this, that you must have not only quantity but price. If you get the one without the other you are net getting very much, and I am afraid that we are having quantity of trade to-day without corresponding price; and not even quantity, when you analyze the figures for the country as a whole, because in 1929, we had $2,650,000,000 of external trade,

which in 1930 had slipped somewhat and in 1931 had gone down to a little over SI,500,-000,000; while at the present time the total is not more than $1,000,000,000. So that we find the total trade of the country is being shot to pieces. Consequently, from the standpoint of trade, our efforts have been a dire failure during the last two years.
And what about price? Let me give the wholesale prices of farm products from 1926 up to the present time, quoting in this regard the information I have obtained from the Bureau of Statistics. In 1926 the base was 100; in 1927 it was 102-it was going up- in 1929 it was 100, and in 1931 it had dropped to 56. That was the year after our friends came into power; the same gentlemen who were going to find us markets and get us prices. The year after they came into power, down went the prices of farm products to 56, and in 1932, in June, the figure was 47 and in July 48, having gone up merely one point.
There you have the sorry tale, so far as farm products are concerned of Conservative policy. We have a drop of about 60 per cent in the value of farm products. We must therefore have a great increase in outside trade and price to make up the amount of money and the volume of international business which we were enjoying in this country a few years ago. We have not the volume now, nor have we the prices; in both respects we are worse off. The regrettable consequence is a deepening of the depression.
What about field products? According to information from the Bureau of Statistics, in 1926 the base was 100, and in 1931 wholesale prices had dropped to less than 48, and also less than 48 in 1932.
The next item is animal products, which along with farm and field products cover the whole ambit of what the farmer has to sell. The index numbers for the wholesale price of animal products in various years are as follows:
1926	 100
1928	 114
1930		 102
1931		 77
The drop in the wholesale prices of animal products has been from 102 two years ago down into the 60's and 70's at the present time. How can this country be financed nationally, how can we progress as a dominion when such conditions prevail? I do not think the Conservative party can find anything over which to rejoice in these figures. They are serious.
In dealing with this economic picture it is only fair that both sides should be given. I

The Address-Mr. McIntosh
have shown how the prices of what the farmer has to sell have dropped. I shall now show the big declines in raw and finished products as far as the manufacturers are concerned. The percentages of decrease in certain raw products are as follows:
Per cent
Hides and skin	 53
Wool	 42
Scrap iron	 40
Raw cotton	 47
Raw silk	 47
The following decreases occurred in finished products:
Per cent
Boots and shoes	 8
Clothing	 14
Hardware	 4
Cotton fabrics	 15
Silk fabrics	 13
The finished products show an average drop of only 11 per cent while there has been a drop of from 50 to 60 per cent in the price of the commodities the farmer has to sell. Mathematically, the farmer is beaten; he is beaten four to one. The great industry of agriculture has had the foundation knocked out from under it and that is why we are to-day still in the midst of a serious depression. The fact is that the depression is now worse than it was three years ago. This startling fact must be faced by the government and people of this country if we are to prepare, as we should prepare, for a bright and prosperous future.
Reference is made in the speech from the throne to the Imperial conference held in Ottawa last summer. It is important to realize that this was not the first conference held in this country. If my memory serves me, I believe the first conference was held back in 1894. At that time, the conferences were called colonial conferences. Even to-day some little Canadians refer to Canada as a colony when in fact we are a sovereign dominion of the crown. The term "colonial" has disappeared so we have now the name Imperial conference. The colonial conferences were three in number, one in 1887, one in 1894 and one in 1902, while other conferences, empire in significance, have been held from 1894 down to the present time. These different conferences dealt with trade and commerce, with preferences, with the development of penny postage and telegraphic communications and other matters, the endeavour of Canada always being from Laurier's day to bind this country more closely to the motherland. At a later date we shall have an opportunity to discuss this last conference and the results thereof. After the house has
studied the different trade agreements and analyzed them from cover to cover, I hope we will be able to come to conclusions which will be of benefit to Canada in the upbuilding of her trade and bringing about a further constitutionally sound consolidation of the empire.
I do not mean that we should consolidate the empire in an economic sense; we have been fighting for a hundred years to bring about a decentralization of the empire politically and constitutionally and I do not think for one moment we should throw away this heritage. These agreements should be studied very carefully and where something is found which may prove to be beneficial, we should stand behind them. If we find they are wrong in principle, in vision, we must be courageous and come out and tell the people of Canada. The debate on this conference should be one of the most momentous in the history of this country.
The speech from the throne refers also to the royal commission which was appointed to study the transportation problem. The report of this commission has been presented to the house, and the government has stated that a bill to ensure more effective and economical operation of the Canadian railways will be presented for consideration. It is intended that the operation of our railways shall be carried on upon the basis of fan-competition with the elimination of extravagant and harmful duplication of services.
In presenting my views on this question I may say that I speak largely for northern Saskatchewan. In a debate on an address in reply I believe we should confine ourselves as far as possible to constituency grievances and problems. Later on this session we shall have ample opportunity to discuss national, imperial and international problems. I shall leave any comments which I desire to make upon the report itself to a later date.
The two great railway systems operate in the constituency of North Battleford, but, during the last year there has been very little constructive railway development in that part of Canada. The Canadian Pacific Railway has built a line from Prince Albert to a point about 125 miles north of North Battleford called Meadow Lake upon which is operated a construction service. This company also has constructed another 35-mile link from a point southward at Med-stead, but no real service is being given. The Canadian Pacific Railway runs out of Saskatoon for about 100 miles to the southern part of the North Saskatchewan river. The end of this line is only about twenty miles out of North Battleford and no attempt has been

The Address-Mr. McIntosh
made to bridge the river or extend the line further northward into that great hinterland where to a large extent the hope of the future development of western Canada lies. During the last two or three years thousands of settlers have trekked into this country. Crop conditions were bad in the south and transportation facilities must be provided if these people are to have the hope of safety on the land for years to come. So we look forward to the time when the Canadian Pacific will extend its line from Meadow Lake westward across the Saskatche-wan-Alberta boundary and to the time when the Canadian Pacific from Saskatoon will enter North Battleford and continue north. It is building its system northward now and doing very well indeed.
We have the Canadian National system in that great territory too and I am not afraid to say this afternoon that I believe the North Battleford constituency, from an agricultural point of view, is equal to anything in Canada and only the fringe of its possibilities has yet been touched. But 'before that part of Canada and its extensions northward and westward will become what it ought to be- from North Battleford northwestward through Edmonton to the Pacific coast, through the great Peace River country, where in the years to come there will be great developments; the possibilities of that immense area being beyond comprehension-further railway facilities must be provided. What about the Canadian National in this part of northern Saskatchewan? We have two portions of the Canadian National system that ought to be finished and that are not finished. I am ready to challenge any man, I do not care where he is or who he is, as to why both of those roads ought not to have been finished last year or the year before and yet there has been nothing done, no constructive development in a railway sense, on one branch line or on the other. There has been on the other hand nothing but a policy of standing still and do nothing. For instance, one portion of the Canadian National railway system in that belt of country is the line from St. Walburg via Red Cross northwestward to Edmonton. Would you believe it, Mr. Speaker, that we have sixty-nine miles of that road all graded; that the ties are lying on both sides of the road, and although that grading has been done for going on a year, it has been impossible to get a foot of steel on that road during the past summer or indeed the last year. In that great belt of country along that road settlers have trekked for the last two or three years from the dry

belts of southern Saskatchewan and from other portions of western Canada. The crop there during the last year was immense, not only in wheat, but oats and barley, the wheat running from twenty-five to thirty bushels an acre. There are about a quarter of a million bushels of wheat in that country and yet that sixt3r-nine miles of road have not been steeled. We have the settlers forty, fifty and sixty miles from a railway. How are they going to get the wheat they have to market? They may take some of it by trucks during the fall months, but you can see it is a hard job. It takes out of the 30 cent wheat prices practically all that is in them when a farmer has his wheat sold-thus he has very little left. The people of that northern belt are expecting action on that railway. It is not a political question. I do not want to inject any politics into it. I want to stand for the united population of that part of northern Saskatchewan and to ask the Canadian National Railways, with the cooperation of the government, to see that redress is secured for those worthy men and women miles and miles beyond railway facilities, in order that they may be able to live and to take care of their families, and in order that they may have those railway facilities possessed by other less productive portions of the dominion. They have helped to pay for railway facilities elsewhere in Canada. Why should they not now have railway facilities especially where the country is opened up and where there is a profitable trade to be done? If I thought this railroad would not pay, I would not ask for it, but I know it will pay and I know every railway into that northern part of Saskatchewan has paid a profit at least equal to anything paid by the Canadian National system in western Canada. Therefore I would ask the government to take action and to do its best to see that that part of the road is steeled as early as possible and that the remaining part of the road to Edmonton is not only graded but steeled, thereby giving a new railway line between North Battleford and Edmonton, through a fine mixed farming portion of Canada, through a country with immense possibilities in a live stock and grain sense.
That is not all. We have another gap on part of the same road only about twenty miles farther south. There is a forty mile gap, part of it in Alberta and part in Saskatchewan from Paradise Hill westward. That gap should have been completed in 1932. The other part of the road through St. Walburg, Red Cross and Loon Lake on to Edmonton across the Beaver river and

The Address-Mr. Coote
through Flat Valley and Goodsoil districts ought to have been completed this year, but, it is not going to be. So you have two portions of the Canadian National system in "The North," which under all the circumstances, ought to have been completed this year but which are not going to be completed this year, that will certainly be profitable lines and regarding which the people are at a loss to know' why action has not been taken and the grading and steeling completed.
There is another line from North Battle-ford, northward through Medstead, to Meadow' Lake, 125 miles. Part of it, as I said, from Medstead to Meadow Lake belongs to the Canadian Pacific and the other part is a dual line. But we have what? We have a partial service on that road north and south and we ought to have a full service. As I understand the matter, there is an agreement to be signed by the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National; but it has never been signed; there has been nothing done; it has been hanging fire for months, for over a year, and as yet there is no through service on the line. But there is no doubt but that it will be a paying line and until the two roads can get together and cooperate with one another that through service will not be possible. Combined action should be taken on this branch line at once.
What about the question of unemployment which is next mentioned, I think, in the speech from the throne? We had the statement made by the government two years ago that unemployment was the direct result of unsound economic policies on the part of the King government.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Let the hon. "hear, hear" and his party accept the consequences of unemployment as we have it today. It was also stated that not only was it on account of the unsound economic policies of the King government but it was because the King government did not pay attention to its first duty, to give work to the Canadian people, to those who need work.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: An hon. member says, "hear, hear." Let [DOT] us examine the facts and see what his, "hear, hear" means when translated into Conservative policy. On August 1 the employment figure wTas 86; on July 1 it was 88; on August 1, 1931, it was 105. In other words, in a year employment in Canada has dropped from 105 to 86, or a difference of 19 points. That proves what? If employment is on the decrease, it must mean that
unemployment is on the increase, and so it is. On August 1, 1932, according to statistics, the unemployment figure was 2T8; on July 1, 1932, it was 21-9 and on August 1, 1931, a year ago it was 16-2. In other words employment in Canada has dropped during the past year and that explains why we have more than seven hundred thousand unemployed in this country. The Conservative government was elected to do away with unemployment. I read what it said about the policy of the King government. The Conservative government came into power; they have been in power for two years and what is the result? Unemployment is growing, is getting worse. Does the house know what is done with men who come to North Battleford and other points and who are unemployed? Does the house know how their much vaunted provincial and municipal policy works out there? The men are sent to Prince Albert and the crown is asked to feed and take care 'of them while the Conservative party, which is in power, is doing nothing-nothing but repeating "hear, hear." That condition of affairs exists all over Canada, and we can only come to the conclusion that in face of the serious unemployment in this country Conservative policies are not adequate to the situation, that they have not got the driving force to solve this unemployment problem, and that if they continue in the future as they have in the past this country will be wrecked economically and industrially.


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, even the speech from the throne, which is always couched in the most optimistic language, does not paint a very bright picture of Canadian conditions. I think the picture painted in the speech from the throne certainly shows that the government does not yet realize the conditions under which the great majority of Canadians are forced to live to-day. Perhaps I can analyse this situation better by dealing with the condition of the agriculturists than in any other way, as those engaged in agriculture are close to fifty per cent of all the people in Canada.
The chief item of production of the agricultural industry is wheat. I intend to deal principally today with the position in which the wheat-grower finds himself. Canadian farmers have often been told that they were better off than any other farmers in the world. This would be poor consolation even if it were true, but it is not true. No. 1 hard wheat, the world's best, is bringing the farmer
The Address-Mr. Coote

in my own constituency about 29 cents a bushel, in carload lots. The attitude of the general public and in some quarters of this house, is that that is "just too bad" for the farmer, but nothing can be done about it. I want to say positively, Mr. Speaker, that something can be done about it and something ought to be done about it right away, and I would like to impress on this house and the Canadian public, if I do not do anything else in my speech today, that something can be done about the price of wheat and other agricultural products. I find in a recent number of the Commercial Intelligence Journal a despatch from our Canadian trade commissioner in Australia in which he makes the following statement, dealing with the price of wheat:
The average price to growers now ruling-depending on the distance from seaboard- varies from 2s. 3d. to 2s. 6d. exclusive of the bounty of 4Jd. per bushel in Australian currency.
In Canadian currency, Mr. Speaker, these Australian farmers are getting 54 to 60 cents and a bonus of 9 cents a bushel.


Mr. YOUNG:: How do you figure that
out?


George Gibson Coote: On the day this despatch
was sent out in which this price of 54 cents was quoted in Australia, farmers at my local shipping point were getting 34 cents, and these two points are both among the most distant from the seaboard in the respective countries. So I think that gives comparative prices of wheat to the grower in Australia and in Canada, 54 cents and 34 cents.


Edward James Young: Did you say 54 Canadian
cents?


George Gibson Coote: In terms of Canadian currenc3' it would be 54 cents, yes.


Edward James Young: What is the value of the
Australian shilling in Canadian currency today?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Make your own speech.


George Gibson Coote: The Address-Mr. Coote


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Including the Prime
Minister.


George Gibson Coote: 
Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I am glad that the old-established tradition of parliament, to debate the address in reply to the speech from the throne, has not been abandoned this year. It has been the custom from time immemorial, at the opening of parliament, to allow the house to express itself on the conditions prevailing in the country, and I have been long enough in public life to have the highest respect for these old conditions and customs which have been sanctioned by the experience of ages.
I regret that at this time the ministry has not seen fit to take part in this debate. I know that many lion, gentlemen opposite would have many things to say were they given an opportunity to address the house at the present time. But we have been told by the Prime Minister that the reason for our meeting now is merely for the purpose of legislating upon the enactments brought about by the Imperial economic conference, and nothing more. Of course, that may be his view of the situation, but unfortunately we represent the people at large, and the people at large do not wish us to deal with one thing only to the neglect of everything else. We are here as the representatives of all classes and sections of the country. Many, no doubt, are interested in the outcome of this conference and the negotiations in connection therewith, but at the present time there are conditions in this country which it is the duty of the elected representatives of the people to make known and to bring to the attention of their colleagues and of the government of the day.
No doubt great importance is being attached to the holding of the Imperial conference here, which is, in a way, another indication of what has taken place in the last few years in the rapid strides that have been made in constitutional government in this country and in the empire at large. The speech from the throne, which we are called upon to discuss, contains certain statements which enable me to refer to other matters besides the conference. It being understood that the resolutions adopted at that conference and the proposals made are to be taken up next week, I do not think it is either right or proper that I should refer to them now, but I cannot refrain from reference to the first paragraph of the address, which concludes with these words:
My government are of opinion that these agreements provide the means by which will be developed an enduring and mutually beneficial scheme of closer empire economic association, and that their early approval is advisable In the national interest.

The Address-Mr. Marcil

There is no doubt that that should be brought about as speedily as possible consistent with our duty towards the people and towards those who are chiefly interested. Taking up an evening paper, a strong supporter of the government, I find the following headline: "General approval given new trade agreements." The first article under this headline contains the following:
J. E. Walsh, general manager of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, is in Ottawa today but he declined to make any general comment, expressing the belief that the tariff changes were so varied that it would be better for spokesmen in the different Canadian industries affected to discuss them.
When a man of this character, the manager of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, a man who has given up the whole of his time year after year to the study of tariffs, is unable to give a pronouncement at the present time, it is almost impossible for a member of this house to come to a conclusion as to the value of the proposals now before us. Statements to the same effect appear in other papers. I have one before me from a Montreal paper which gives the viewpoint of industry. It reads:
Practically all executives of leading companies which have been affected by the changes in the Canadian tariff announced at Ottawa today declined to comment, pleading the need of further study before a just appraisal could be made.	.
The generous extension of the British preferential tariff was generally hailed as a constructive step in building up reciprocal empire trade. It was agreed that there would be some effect on leading Canadian industries such as steel, textiles, distilleries, glass and tobacco, but there was no indication given that sound Canadian industries would suffer any serious adverse effect by the change.
That is the opinion of one group in Montreal, but in an adjoining column of the same paper there appears a statement of the manager of a Cornwall cotton mill, to the effect that the only way in which Canadian cotton mills will be able to compete favourably with British mills will 'be by a reduction in the wages of the working man. The statement has been made by an executive of a large woollen mill in Ontario to the effect that production may have to be contracted because in certain lines competition with the people on the other side of the water will be almost impossible.
This is an old story. Tariffs do not suit everybody; they never did and they never will. If they could suit a majority of the people it would be something, but tariffs have been discussed for many years in Canada and in the country to the south without arriving at

a satisfactory conclusion. Today the tariff is the outstanding question before the people of the United States.
Last night I listened at the radio for an hour and three-quarters to a speech delivered by the President of the United States at Des Moines, Iowa, in defence of the American tariff. It seemed almost incredible to me that a man of that calibre, the leader of
120.000.	000 people, should take up an hour and three-quarters in the defence of a policy which has almost brought the United States to the brink of ruin. There are to-day nearly
14.000.	000 unemployed in the United States which means that almost 60,000,000, or one-half the population, is affected. This condition has been brought about because of the high tariff policy of that country.
From 1897 to 1911, under the regime of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, this country experienced the most prosperous period in its history and it seems almost incredible that we have not benefited by the experience of the United States. That country closed its doors to the commerce of the world and now it is feeling the effect. We imitated its actions during the short session of 1930 and as I listened yesterday to the great effort made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) I could not help but realize that he was trying to undo what he had done in September, 1930. At that time we closed our markets to the other countries of the world; we sold practically nothing and imported very little. When you do not sell, you do not buy. Our total trade has been declining at the rate of almost $2,000,000 per day since the new tariff changes were put into effect and I wonder how the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) will take care of this loss of revenue when he presents his budget next year.
It is expected that these new' agreements will permit from 875,000,000 to 8100,000,000 worth of goods to come in from England free of duty and this will necessitate our finding revenue somewhere else. It is no use trying to disguise the fact that we are trying to displace trade with the United States by trade with England. England is our motherland, we are all proud of being British subjects- I come from a part of the country where the people pride themselves upon the fact that they will remain forever loyal to the British crown: they are determined to do this for many reasons which I shall not enumerate at the present time-but we must realize that our natural market is the United States. Whatever trade w'e may have with England

The Address-Mr. Marcil
and other parts of the empire it will never offset the trade which we should have with the United States.
At one time the Liberal party under its great leader attempted to bring about a better understanding with the country to the south in order that we might have at hand a market for our natural products. The Canadian people were misled by such questions as the imperial navy, contributions to the empire and so on, and they voted against reciprocity. It has been recognized in all parts of the country that that was a fatal mistake because we lost our natural market. The American people have gone to the other extreme; they have gone so far that there is bound to be a change in government on November 8. If I read aright the feelings of the people, there is bound to be a great change in the next elections in the United States. The people cannot stand the exclusion which that country has placed upon the goods of other countries, to such an extent that 67 other countries have followed in its footsteps.
I am old enough in politics to hope that the results of this conference will prove to be a success. The country is really in a bad state at the present time. During my fifty-five years of public life I have had many experiences with depressions but even the great depression of 1878 was not a drop in the bucket compared with the one today. At that time I was living in the city of Montreal, the largest city in the dominion with a population of 225,000; during those days we had soup kitchens and so on, but the general situation brought about the downfall of Alexander Mackenzie, the man who did not want to tax the people because there was no necessity for taxation. But the condition in those days was nothing compared with what it is today. At the present time I am informed that in the city of Montreal there are
125,000	people receiving relief. What will the figure be next year? What position will they be in in that large city? At the present time ten per cent of the population are receiving relief either from the Dominion or from the municipality or from the province of Quebec. The same thing applies throughout the Dominion, the figure having been placed at
700,000.	The Prime Minister is very sanguine of the success of these negotiations he has had with the mother country and the other dominions of the empire. But he says: These are potentialities; we shall control the bacon market in England provided that we are equipped for that and we are able to displace Holland, Denmark and the other countries that now control that market. That may
take time. In some cases he talked about three years and in others about five years. We have to displace Argentina and other countries, for instance the Irish Free State, and so on, that are near to the mother country. Are we able to do that? Are we going to imagine we shall be able to displace those countries no matter what preferences are given to us? I doubt this very much, but I hope for the best; I hope some good will come out of these negotiations. Until, however, we have sifted them to the bottom, no man seems competent to express an opinion. We have heard the opinions of technical men but at present I do not wish to express an opinion.
In the meantime I feel it my duty to bring to the attention of the house certain conditions which prevail in my constituency, thereby giving an idea of what prevails throughout the rest of the country. In the last campaign in 1930, in the month of July, my opponent of course re-echoed the promises made by his leader. He was amazed, dumbfounded and almost scandalized by the terrible New Zealand butter treaty. The good farmers of Bonaventure county on the day they voted, large numbers of them for the Conservative party, were selling their butter at 36 cents per pound. Last summer butter in that county netted the farmer 9t cents per pound; he was paid 4 cents a gallon for his milk, and money is so scarce that they are unable to pay their taxes, unable in many cases to pay the pews they have in the church and unable to pay their school teachers. The question is whether the schools can be kept open; never before in the thirty years that I have represented that county have I seen such a state of affairs as exists there at the present time. Fishermen told me that at the end of June they crossed the Baie des Chaleurs in their sailing boats and purchased grade No. 1 potatoes for 25 and 20 cents a barrel, bringing them back for local consumption. This was last year's crop, which was being replaced by the new crop coming in. Some got them even as low as 15 cents a barrel. We have had no shanties in eastern Quebec for the last two years. Thousands and thousands of our young men who every year go into the lumber woods were idle last winter and the winter before, and they are going to be idle again this winter. Every saw mill from Rimouski down the Matapedia valley along the coast of Bonaventure and Gaspe has been closed, with one exception. The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix) has a saw mill where he is sawing a quantity of logs so that they will not be completely lost, but he says
1S2
The Address-Mr. Marcil

that he can find no market for his product. Therefore in the lumber industry there has been complete stagnation. In the town of Campbellton, which is the leading town of northern New Brunswick, all the mills with one exception are closed down; between three and four thousand men are idle and the people do not know where to turn and how to get food and clothing during the coming winter. We all received some days ago two or three slices of bread that were sent to us by mail-bread for the chomeurs, for the unemployed. Those are the rations that are being given to good Canadians who are willing to work. If this government could implement only half the promises it made and find a market for our farmers and work for our mechanics, all our troubles would be settled. In the city of Ottawa market produce has been practically given away during the summer. Large baskets of beautiful tomatoes have been sold at ten cents a basket. I shall say no more about the present situation, because when these economic proposals are under consideration I shall be in a position to discuss them with better knowledge than I have at the present moment.
In the second paragraph of the speech from the throne I find the statement that during the present session legislation will be introduced to give effect to certain recommendations of the transportation commission. With all the respect that I have for the members of this commission, some of whom are railway men, others judges and others bankers, their findings are merely their own opinions, and I hate to imagine that they are more competent to express an opinion than Mr. Beatty or Sir Henry Thornton. We shall, however, judge what the government decides to accept of those recommendations when the bill is brought in. There has no doubt been superabundance of railway construction in this country; too many railways have been built, but I still hear speeches that were uttered in this chamber twenty or twenty-five years ago by members from western Canada who, when in 1904 we decided upon the construction of the transcontinental, claimed that it was not one or two transcontinental railways that would be needed in the west, but that half a dozen railways would be required. Men of the standing of Clifford Sifton and others of both parties coming from the west were confident that the words of Sir Charles Tupper had come true and that western Canada had in fact become the granary of the world. They were insistent in the matter, and some years later when I had the honour of occupy-(Mr. Marcil.]
ing the chair which you, sir, now have the honour to occupy, I listened to western members of both political parties insisting on the immediate construction of the Hudson Bay railway and I do not know how many other branch lines in addition. Of course those people were confident of the future of Canada; they were confident that the prosperity which existed under the Laurier regime, when a thousand immigrants came into Canada every day, when every train to the west was filled with immigrants and every steamer from overseas was bringing new citizens to this country, would continue. But unfortunately it did not.
In 1911 there was a change and the change was not for the better. Then the unfortunate period of the war came and that made matters still worse. But what position was the Liberal party in when in 1921 it took office? We all remember the railway situation that prevailed. The Canadian National Railway is the creation of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, who took part in many an ardent debate with the present leader of the government. When the proposals were made in the house that the Canadian Northern be taken over, the present leader of the government was not quite in agreement with the then Prime Minister. Be that as it may, the Conservative party claimed, and rightly so to a certain extent, that the Canadian National was their creation, and they were proud of their offspring. When the Liberal party came into power we were divided on the question. Some were in favour of public ownership; others were in favour of private ownership. Private ownership has been a success; the Canadian Pacific Railway is one of the outstanding companies of the world; it will sell you a ticket which will take you to the other end of the world. It controls business not only on land but on the five seas. Public ownership also has something to its credit, in the province of Ontario it has been a success, in the province of Quebec we have private ownership, that is the desire of the people. In the United States opinions are divided, in some parts they favour public ownership, in other parts private ownership.
In 1921 the Liberal party decided to give public ownership a fair trial, and we scanned the world for an outstanding man who could take charge of the defunct, bankrupt, broken-down railway system that we had at that time. Such a man was found in the person of Sir Henry Thornton. His coming into Canada was acclaimed. Things were prosperous, we were paying off our debts, we had

The Address-Mr. Marcil
surpluses, we were bringing down taxation, that was the history of the regime from 1921 to 1930, we were prosperous, things were going well, our trade doubled and trebled-it has been cut down by half now owing to many circumstances that I have not time to enumerate-we had money, Canadians were confident of the future, and they wanted men to develop this country. I see the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens): he is one of the prominent sons of British Columbia, one of its most distinguished representatives in this house. How fervently he pleaded the cause of Vancouver and other ports of British Columbia for improvements. He has contributed, and the King government contributed to make Vancouver what it is today, the second port in Canada. Every decent city wanted to have a hotel, a railway hotel, like they have in the mother country. The two outstanding instances that have been given of the construction of hotels have been a success, that is, as far as hotels can be a success managed by railway companies. We had first that unique hotel, the Chateau Frontenac at Quebec, unique in the world by the site it occupies and the enchanting surroundings. The Chateau Frontenac has been a great success, it is today one of the great hotels of the world. Then when Sir Wilfrid Laurier advocated the taking of a small part of Major Hill park here for the construction of the chateau there was a scandalous scene in this house, I remember the Conservative whip our late friend from Leeds, how scandalized he was at the idea of building a hotel here. But in those days the best hotel we had was the old Russell House, forty or fifty years of age. The Chateau Laurier has not been a paying enterprise, but it filled a long-felt want; the Prime Minister himself has been among the first to acknowledge its usefulness, and during the empire conference we were very happy to have such a hotel here. The Royal York in Toronto is another instance, a credit to the country and to the enterprise of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The other railway hotels, in Winnipeg, Vancouver, and throughout the west would all be accepted as quite rational and normal were we living under rational and normal conditions. But we are not, we are facing hard times, the result no doubt primarily of the war, but subsequently of wrong fiscal policies that we have adopted in Canada, policies which have been condemned by the League of Nations, as the curse not only of this country but of every country in the world. We have now economic
warfare displacing the oldtimc warfare of 1914 to 1918.
The Prime Minister in bringing in these proposals is merely trying to get back to the old Liberal doctrine, to freedom of trade, to knock down the barriers, to get back to lower tariffs. No trade can be carried on while you have these obstacles and barriers in the way, either high tariffs or disturbance of exchange or the gold standard or depreciated currency, on which our friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce has given us such enlightening addresses in this house and which I for myself have studied with great interest. These are all factors in bringing about the situation we now occupy. But, Mr. Speaker,
I contend as a result of whatever experience I have had that Canada's situation is different from that of the densely crowded countries of Europe. We have an immense territory, we have only begun to develop the resources of Canada. We have under the plough only ten per cent of the western country known to the farmer. We have in our own province hundreds and thousands of miles that have not yet been touched. We have here a country which is unparalleled on the face of the earth, we must have a policy that suits this country, and the policy that suits this country is a policy of free trade except for the demands of revenue. We must have revenue, and since we do not want to accept direct taxation we must have a revenue from tariffs to meet our requirements. Now the higher our tariffs the lower our revenue. We are resorting now to direct taxation, we have it on postage stamps, we have it on everything. Our revenue is falling off, it is going to fall off more. Where will the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) be when ho presents ids next budget speech? If these agreements are implemented with Great Britain and the other countries our revenue will again fall off. So there is only one policy as far as I have been able to ascertain, that is a policy of tariff for revenue purposes only, a tariff that will develop all our industries, and principally and primarily our agricultural industry. We have four basic industries in which Canada is in the lead, cannot be beaten in the world; they are, agriculture, mining, the forest industries and the fisheries. With these immense expanses of water that we have, with these hundreds of thousands of acres of land, with these forests and the riches that are found in our soil our position should be of the strongest. I remember the day fifteen or twenty years ago when cobalt ore was
The Address-Mr. Marcil

discovered in northern Ontario. See where northern Ontario stands to-day in the mining field. In mineral production, Canada stands, I think, second or third in the world, and we have only just begun. I do not know how we stand at present but we did stand fourth or fifth in world trade, with our small population. There are immense potentialities within our grasp, but we should be moderate and reasonable, we should follow the old policy of give and take and not imagine that we can sell unless we buy. If we close our markets to others, others will close their markets to us; the only way in which we can get trade is to look after trade and buy from others and let others buy from us. There were reasons for raising certain of our tariff items against the United States. The United States has, in my view, raised its tariffs beyond all common sense in many instances, and the result is that their foreign trade has dwindled to almost nothing, about $17 per head. Sixty-seven countries in the world have practically placed an embargo on American products and have practically no dealings with the United States. We do not want to be in that position, and I hope that after the discussion has taken place on these proposals which are now before us, the Canadian people will have begun to realize that something has been done for them at last, because nothing of any practical good has been done so far. It is true that we have given a few days' employment here and there. But, on the other hand, we have in the province of Quebec alone 1,500 municipalities which are unable to meet their obligations. This year for the first time in thirty years the province of Quebec has a deficit. Other provinces have also run into debt; four or five of them are unable to meet their obligations, and we have to vote money here to help them out. What has been done for Canada during the last two and a half years, and what is being done for Canada now? Are we satisfied with our work? There are
700,000	men out of employment in this country to-day. Are those who form the majority in this house satisfied that they have implemented the promises which they made to the people in the good old summer time of 1930?
There are, I admit, conditions that are insurmountable. I want to be fair to the Prime Minister. He has given an example of industry which I have never seen surpassed and rarely equalled in this house, but unfortunately in making his proposals he forgot one important point, and that is that it takes two to make a bargain. Though his intentions

were good, though he intended to do many good things, he found it impossible to carry out his promises. The people in my part of the province come to me day after day and say: "You are an old member of the house; can you not bring on an election and give us a chance to have a change in the fiscal policies of this country? Because we are starving; we have no money, no work, no market, nothing with which to clothe our children. An appeal was made in the Montreal Gazette two or three days ago by an Anglican clergyman on the coast of Gaspe for clothing to be sent by the people of Montreal down to Gaspe to clothe the poor children there. That is the condition in the oldest part of Canada, a part which was discovered four hundred years ago by Jacques Cartier, a section of this country which has known all that is good and bad in Canada. The people in that part of my province are in such dire straits that they are unable to clothe and feed their children. And so it is throughout the land.
I sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, that some good will come out of these conference agreements, but from the extracts that I have read I have many misgivings as to their results. Anyway it will take time, and time alone is the arbiter in these questions. In the meantime I trust that the government will not rest satisfied with merely giving relief to those of our people who are in want and distress, making paupers of them all, but rather that they will find a way to give them work instead of merely a dole.
Reference is made in the speech from the throne to the St. Lawrence waterway. I listened the other day at Brockville to a number of speeches on this subject, but if there is a Democratic victory in the United States at the next election, we will probably not hear of this waterway for some time. If the American senate rejects the proposal we may never have to deal with it in our day. It is a far-off question in any event; there is not much relief to be expected from that quarter in the immediate future. If the recommendations of the transportation commission are implemented they will result in a few more thousands of men being thrown out of employment. You see what the feeling is in this country. You see what it was in South Huron and in Maisonneuve, with half a dozen candidates in the field, and in Royal, New Brunswick, and what it is in all parts of this country. I am thankful for one thing, and that is that the Liberal party is not in office at the present time with the same results from its policies; for had we had the same

The Address-Miss Macpliail
policy upon which our hon. friends opposite have been proceeding during the last few years, undoubtedly we would have had the same results. It is a mistaken policy, and I hope that the Prime Minister in his arrangements with the other countries of the empire ' is beginning to undo what he has done, beginning to bring down the tariff barriers so as to give Canadians, as he himself put it, a chance. Well, the time has arrived. Half the term of this parliament has expired. Time flies quickly; parliaments pass rapidly. Today the Prime Minister introduces a bill for redistribution, and we may have an election in twelve months or twenty-four months. But what matters it? Will every member of this house be in a position when he goes before his electors to declare that this House of Commons did what it should have done in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves to give to the Canadian people the treatment and the fiscal policy, the government and the public administration to which they are entitled? I am not thinking of party lines at the present moment. I am willing to support these measures if it can be shown that they are for the advantage of our people, because in my constituency I have men of all parties, of all creeds and of all nationalities who are in dire want. It is a question of humanity; it is a question of coming to their relief. It is a question of finding means to give to Canadians, who are entitled after all to fair treatment, that which they have not had in the past and which they do not possess today either in my province or in any other. We shall probably have some long debates on these empire proposals. I think it is only fair to the Canadian people and fair to this house that these agreements should not be voted blindly. There will be disagreements. No doubt certain members of the Conservative party will have independence enough to show where those disagreements are. They may point out that mistakes have been made. Let us not forget that in these agreements we are tying ourselves down for five years. When we come to negotiate treaties with other countries we shall be up against this five year noose that we have put around our necks. Is it fair that we should hem ourselves within the British Empire, immense as it undoubtedly is, and forget the rest of the world? These are considerations which well deserve the attention of this house before we finally come to express an opinion on this question.
There are other questions to which I should like to refer but I do not wish to delay the house at any further length, except in the
five minutes remaining to cover the remainder of the speech from the throne.
How is the Liberal party meeting the present situation? It has met it by the amendment moved by the right hon. leader of the opposition, to which a rider has been added by our friends in the other corner, expressing general dissatisfaction with the present state of affairs. I hope that when that subamendment is voted down, as the main amendment will be later, we shall take up and consider these empire proposals with the sole purpose in view of helping the country. I hope that we shall consider these agreements deliberately and dispassionately, with no bias, because we have reached the point where Canada must either go ahead or go back. I am thankful that we have in our cities, in the great city of Montreal, for instance, with a population of one million, a law-abiding people, because otherwise what might net happen? See what happened in Belfast yesterday, and consider what might happen in this country if our people were not law-abiding. The people need to be helped and they must be helped by broad, conscientious and patriotic measures which will show that we, their representatives in this house, place the public good above all cither considerations, and with that in view have legislated as best we knew how to find a solution for one of the greatest problems, if not the greatest, that this country has ever had to deal with.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to say
a good deal concerning the second to last paragraph of the speech from the throne, but it has been so well dealt with by other hon. members that I feel I need say very little about it. My eleven years experience in the House of Commons led me to believe that the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) who for many years was leader of the government, was the greatest master in Canada of phrasemaking. I thought that at any time he could carry off the palm for the bringing together of beautiful if sometimes meaningless words. However, after reading the second to last paragraph in the speech from the throne, I feel he must give place to the present Prime Minister. We find such expressions as the

The Address-Miss Macphail
following: " retrenchment and constructive development," " enviable financial position of this country," and " the integrity of industry." That, more than any other expression, challenges my admiration; I should never have thought of it. When one thinks of the watered stock of industry and the callousness with which industrial leaders turn out their employees; when one considers the tariff concessions given year after year and time after time, and adds to that excise protection- a new name for tariffs-and then makes the addition of dumping duties, we come to an understanding of what is termed " the integrity of industry."
Then we find the expression " the resourcefulness of agriculture." I understand that very well. The expression really means that the farmer stops taking the daily paper, has his telephone removed from the house, does without a new winter overcoat, and has his children do without a much needed tonsil operation. The farmer's wife does not get her new hat or new shoes; they are not able to take the little trip they had planned- oh, yes, I understand that.
And then the last expression-" enabled us to take quick and profitable advantage of improved conditions." That is good. Then there is one other I should not like to miss, namely his reference to " approaching prosperity." Of course, if it is on the road anywhere, I suppose it is approaching-unless it is running the other way. That, too, might be possible. The paragraph to which I have referred is such a gem that, really, we ought to see that it goes into every home in Canada. It is too bad that the king's representative had to say it, but it is really rich- in fact, it is the best I have heard in eleven years.


Alfred Speakman: And that is saying a
good deal.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Yes, that is saying a
good deal. Now I should like to refer to the Prime Minister's speech in reply to the one he had previously made. He has said that his government stands for sound money. In that connection his words are as follows:
There is only one thing that can be said about this government with respect to its monetary policy, and that is this: We will stand for sound money.
I believe if he had taken the word "sound" out, his statement would have been equally accurate. I think it is apparent that the Prime Minister and the government-if one

must add the qualification-do stand for money., I believe he stands for high interest rates, for deflation, for the payment of debts with dear money-debts which were contracted with money which was worth about half what it is now, and at a time when commodities were worth about twice their present value. The government and the Prime Minister stand for money, because the terrific taxation in this country does not bear very heavily upon the moneyed classes, but bears most heavily upon the backs of the masses.
In contrast to the position taken by the Prime Minister, either that he stands for sound money or for money, I want to say quite frankly that I stand for the people. I stand for those farmers who this year have worked and were not only underpaid, but, as a matter of fact, were not paid at all. I believe it is not inaccurate to say that there is not a farmer in the province of Ontario who this year can earn his taxes from the proceeds of the land he has cultivated. True, he might pay them from accumulated capital, or by selling off some of his young stock which he should not have to sell, and the selling of which impoverishes him for the next year. He might pay his taxes by doing without things that he needs, or by borrowing. I repeat however, it is not inaccurate to say that there is not a farmer in Ontario who this year will pay his taxes from the earnings of his land. I am very proud to stand for that type of person. In the class I include not only the farmers, but also the unemployed. Those people constitute a disinherited class, and it is a very large class in Canada. One does not need to quote figures, but we may have noticed that the leader of the opposition said there were 500,000 unemployed; probably 700,000 would be closer to the number. There is in Canada this great disinherited class which in these fall months must face the winter with fear. Some one must stand for them. I think a great many hon. members in this house are seeking to serve them. I believe we are all sympathetic. I think the Prime Minister is sympathetic-but unfortunately, sympathy is not enough. We must stand for a money policy, and a general national policy which will bring this disinherited class into its inheritance again, a policy which will make of them people like ourselves who are not fearful that they will not get something to eat or have a house to live in, or clothes to wear.
OCTOBER 13, 1932	[DOT]	187
The Address[DOT]-Miss Macphail
So the Prime Minister is exceedingly welcome to his statement that he stands for a sound monetary policy if by that expression he means the monetary policy he has been pursuing. Then later in his address, he stated that there were people going around the country-he referred to them as soap box orators, communists, and socialists-who will endeavour to arcuse the passions and prejudices of the people, and who will carry to them tales of new nostrums and remedies that will cure all the economic evils of the day. I say to the Prime Minister that I suspect I am one of the soap box orators to whom he has referred. I have no apologies to make, but would say, to quiet the fears of the Prime Minister, that I did not stir the prejudices or passions of the people. He has done that already. Does he not know that the kind of speech he made the other day is the very thing that does stir the prejudices and passions of the Canadian people We picture the Prime Minister in his absolute, assured, and complete comfort this winter holding out to the unemployed the one hope that if they emerge from the present crisis, they will be better people, and that they will be strengthened by the fires of adversit}7.
I have some further remarks concerning soap box orators. While visiting Smith College for a period of three days, just before the house met, I met a man named Mr. Muste who was the head of a labour college. This gentleman would compare favourably with our own J. S. Woodsworth-that sort of man. In his remarks he said that people were now ready to listen to anybody, and that is why he was there. He felt that they would not have had him some years ago. Doctor Neil-son, president of Smith College, said that when more and more people had less and less, they were more and more ready to listen to ideas. And so, if the Prime Minister wishes to call us soap box orators, I am quite content. At any rate, the people of Canada have been looking for a lead. They have been looking for ideas which they thought would be of some use to them if put into practice, and primarily they have been looking to the leader of the government. I doubt whether in recent Canadian history the people have turned so unanimously to one man for help as they turned to the Prime Minister just two years ago. They have been listening all these months for something w'hich, to them, might have the ring of reality, but they have been disappointed-just this talk about the fires of adversity. I hope he will not hear what the people are going to think of it. Surely he does not know the
suffering of the Canadian people, the mind of the Canadian people today. And failing to hear from the Prime Minister, the things which the people feel that he ought to have said, things that need to be said, they have turned a listening ear to the leader of the opposition. All summer I myself have been waiting for him to say something that meant something. One thing I have heard in this long summer, however. The other day I noticed that he had imdergone a conversion, a recent conversion to monetary reform, but it wTas so recent that he stumbled over the words. He does not use them glibly yet. That is why, to finish up with the soap box orators, the people are asking those of us who are saying different things to go and say them, not because they think we are necessarily right but because at any rate we are saying something that fits their case, and they are therefore willing to listen. I have no apologies to make; I am rather glad that we have something to say to the people to which they are ready to listen. We do not have to have a band to meet us at the station; we are not expensive people to have. You can go into little halls where there is hardly enough light to see by, but fortunately crowded with people who want to hear something different from what hon. gentlemen have been telling them. You do not have to assure the people that you are one of them, because if you arc one of them the fact is obvious and if you are not no amount of explanation will help you at all.
Personally I was relieved when the Prime Minister hit upon the word nostrum; I was fearful of what might happen if his indignation did not find adequate vent. I want to discuss for a moment sound money, or at any rate money, whether sound or unsound. I should say that you might say almost anything about our money except that it is sound; you might call it elastic money or vanishing money or apparent money, but it does not seem to me that you can describe our money today as sound. The Prime Minister tells us that it is sound because we are going to discharge our contractual obligations. I do not think we are. I think of the people who contracted debts when commodity prices were twice what they are today, and perhaps three times in some instances, and then I think of sound money, in the language of the Prime Minister, which requires these farmers and others as well to pay back the debts which they contracted with money that is worth two or three times as much as the money they got when they borrowed it. There is nothing soimd about that money; it is ab-

The Address-Miss Macphail
solutely unsound. We have a fixed yard measure, a fixed bushel measure, and fixed pound measurement; but the dollar is not fixed; that is what is wrong with it. I think, therefore, that the money we have is unsound money. Most people realize that it is unsound. For instance, the dollar in 1919 would buy less than half a bushel of wheat; in 1929 it could buy a bushel and in 1931 three bushels, and a few weeks ago it could buy almost four bushels. Surely that is not sound money. Wheat is wheat and does not get bigger or smaller; it is just the same kind of wheat, and a bushel is always a bushel. So that the only thing that was unsound in the whole transaction was the dollar, by which unfortunately we have to measure our wheat and potatoes, our eggs and butter, and our beef and pork, to pay our debts. If sound money, so-called, has developed the situation we have today, and is in part the cause of the army of 700,000 unemployed, if it is the cause of the extremely low commodity prices of all basic products, then surely it is not sound and it is quite time we did something about it.
There is one other thing I meant to mention before and that is that great crowds of young people, men and women, are coming into life thinking they are prepared for it and finding no place in it at all. You cannot see freight trains, even if young men are not supposed to ride on them, that do not carry boys going from one place to another. You pick them up on the roads. I have been motoring most of the summer and have talked to a great number of these boys, just lads, most of them, with high school education, and they are really desperate; they are beginning to talk desperately. It will be a great comfort to them, I am sure, to hear that this trial they have gone through will improve their moral fibre. They will not be able to see it, I am afraid. And if this money we have in Canada has anything at all to do with these armies of young people who have not been absorbed into the economic life of the country, then it cannot be called sound but simply unsound money. It does seem to me that all the people with low prices for the commodities they produce, all the young people who are unable to find employment, and the whole army of unemployed, are sacrifices offered on the altar of sound money; and they are being offered up as a sacrifice to the few, the very few, so that those few, sleek fatted favourites of the god of gold may be specially cared for. Personally, I am going to do everything I can to see that this money system is ended, so that those who are suffering from low com-

modify prices, and the young people who cannot find a place in our economic life at the present time, as well as the army of unemployed in Canada, will obtain relief, let it do what it will to the favourites of the present system.
Eight or nine years ago when the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) stood up in this house and said that money should be issued in relation to goods and services, we all thought that he was more or less off the track. We all had the notion that our paper money must be issued in relation to gold. Personally I have come to the conclusion that the money we use internally need not and should not have any relation to gold. As a matter of fact it has not and we should forget all about it and base our paper money on goods and services. Moreover, it should be issued by the federal government and by the federal government alone, and in quantities sufficient to move goods and services and to raise prices to a point more on a level with the point at which our money was when we contracted our debts. If such money is what the Prime Minister would call unsound money, then I proudly and gladly stand for unsound money. Since we are not children, I do not see why our paper money should have any relation to gold. I cannot get it through my head-I may not be an intelligent person -that you should dig gold out of a mine, get it above ground, write paper against it and then bury it in a vault where it is of no use at all. I must say that that is beyond me; I do not understand it. I do not think that paper money has anything at all to do with gold; it should be related only to the goods and services, the natural resources of Canada and character of the Canadian people. That should be the basis for our currency.
I notice a change in the expression on the faces of hon. members these days when we advocate the issuing of new money in such quantities as to raise the price level. They are thinking a little more seriously about this than they did a few years ago. People say: "That may be all very well, but Canada cannot do it alone; we must wait until it is done internationally. There must be international conferences." To my mind the Canadian people are being fooled along from one conference to another; there is a sort of hope deferred-if it does not come out of this conference, possibly it will come out of the next. The Ottawa Citizen of October 13 contained an interesting article on this very point. Ihe article is headed The Age of Plenty, and is

The, Address-Miss Macphail
by the Marquis of Tavistock, which should make it respectable, if not sound. The article reads:
Undoubtedly one of the worst obstacles which are hindering the eleventh-hour rescue of the world from impending financial disaster is the delusion so widely fostered and so firmly implanted in Mr. Chamberlain's mind,-
We could substitute "Mr. Bennett's"-
-that economic problems can only be solved by international conferences and international agreements. It sounds so plausible, and it is in reality such utter and pernicious dope. There is no great issue where international agreement is less necessary as a preliminary and where international harmony is now more dependent on bold and independent leads from individual nations. The internal value of a country's money is purely a domestic affair and depends on the amount of money in the country in relation to the amount of needed goods.
He finishes by saying:
There is absolutely nothing in trade conditions at home or abroad-
Speaking of England-
-that prevents us adopting an enlightened monetary policy ahead of other nations or exposes us to dangers and evils in any degree comparable to those which are at present in being or loom not far ahead.
That reads like sense.


George Gibson Coote: It is sense.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Yes, it is. I wonder if the members of the government read things like that? If they do, how can they go on stating that there can be no money unless so much gold is dug out of the ground in order to issue paper against?
I do not think the chartered banks of Canada should have the right to issue money. I am now referring to their right to issue and not to the apparent money which they do issue in such large quantities. This same opinion is held by many people. I think Henry Ford states it in an interesting fashion when he says that money should be for the service and use of all the people and the right of making it should not be farmed out to private interests like sandwich booths at a picnic. I think that would probably prove a little more profitable than running a sandwich booth, but it is really the same idea.
I have been reading the Toronto Saturday Night all through the year because of the very interesting articles on money. One of John Collingwood Reade's articles contains the following:
Now that ninety per cent of our transactions are conducted with credit money, the making and destroying of which must await the convenience of private groups-who do not, for the most part understand the engines they control
-human life and happiness and its right to the fruit of its own toil depend on the blind workings of the credit system. The system holds the loyalty of its victims-
That is a well chosen word-
-mainly because of the mystery surrounding it and enjoys the sanctity derived from nothing but long usage.
That is putting it very clearly. I should like to quote from Sir William Beveridge. At one time I was almost against titles, but since we have got into this monetary reform business I feel that one can mouth with confidence such titles as the Marquis of Tavistock and Sir William Beveridge. Sir William says:
The crisis of today represents a failure to manage credit, to avoid alternate inflation and deflation of purchasing power. There is a flaw in our machinery for making and unmaking purchasing power; it is not under control.
I shall quote further from an article referring to Mr. J. M. Keynes, and I do this for the benefit of the Prime Minister. The article reads:
Mr. J. M. Keynes marvels at the "rubbish a public man has to utter today if he is to keep respectable. Serious and sensible bankers have to go about assuring the world of their conviction that there is no serious risk of deflation, when, what they really mean, is that they cannot see good enough reason for daring to hope for it."
We may be drawing close to the time when one can be both intelligent and responsible in making utterances with reference to money. When that day comes it will be much easier to listen to certain speakers.
The banks not only have the legal right to issue money, but they have the further privilege of issuing ninety-six per cent of all the money used in Canada. We are told that the banker's pen makes it sound money. Is that not interesting? The Dominion government should issue its own money and put it out in relation to goods and services to be used in the day to day expenditures of the government. This could be done in connection with the St. Lawrence waterway. I do not want to see this project carried out with money borrowed against which interest will be charged. Let the federal treasury issue new money and put it in circulation. If it were done in that way, we could advocate the completion of this project, but we cannot do so when it means that further debt will be placed on the people to provide transportation facilities when what we lack is not transportation facilities but something to transport.
The Prime Minister does not need to sneer it the printing presses. I should like to ask



The Address-Miss Macphail
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) how these nice, new, crisp federal notes are got out if the printing press is not used. I hope the Minister of Finance does not have to sit up and do them all by hand, but I suppose since the bankers can print bills so also can the Minister of Finance. I was going to say that I resented that statement by the Prime Minister, but I realize it is too amusing to be resented. However, I do resent the way in which he stands up in this house and lectures us and tells us everything about everything; it is just too much.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is amusing at any rate.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Though we have "sound money," we are caught between the American gold dollar and the British paper pound. We are neither fish, fowl or good red herring, and yet we are paying the price both ways.


Mr. GARDINER:: That is sound.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: The Prime Minister's fury in denouncing unsound money reminds me of Ramsay MacDonald's hysteria during the last British elections when he went around waving German marks. I think those hardheaded Scotch people should have known better than to be carried away by his statements. He told them what a dreadful thing would happen to England if she went off the gold standard, and then he became the Prime Minister of the government which took the country off that standard almost at once. If possible, I should like to help the Prime Minister and save him from apoplexy, and I shall quote Mr. J. Maynard Keynes on England's going off the gold standard. Mr. Keynes, who is considered to be a very able economist, says:
Moreover, there has been a still recent and, in my judgment, most blessed event, of which we have not yet had time to gain the full benefit. I mean Great Britain's abandonment of the gold standard. I believe that this event has been charged with beneficent significance over a wide field. If Great Britain had somehow contrived to maintain her gold parity, the position of the world as a whole today would be considerably more desperate than it is, and default more general.
Somebody ought to tell the Prime Minister that. I wanted to take time, but I will not do so, to quote again from John Collingwood Reade, as he gives several ways in which we could get more money into circulation. One is by lessening the amount of gold behind each dollar, and the other, and the one I like myself, is simply iby the federal government printing the money and putting it out into circulation in quantities that will raise the

price level in Canada to something approaching the 1928-29 price level, and also putting: us on a level with the British paper pound. May I say, since I have not much time to go into the matter, that the array of inviting markets which the Imperial conference has opened up to us but which we cannot enter because of exchange, reminds me of how the unemployed must feel when they walk past a window full of luscious food. They have an empty stomach and the merchant has the food, but as they have not any money they cannot get food into the stomach. The conference says: You can. sell hundreds of thousands of pounds of bacon, so many cattle and so many this and that in England; think of the wonderful things we have done for you! But the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance know

and they must know because they are intelligent men or they would not be where they are-that the farmer cannot enter that market when the British paper pound is worth $3.80 and when we are losing twenty-five cents on every dollar's worth of produce that we send over there. I was sorry about this because it adds to the worries of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) who, heaven knows, had enough before. He brought all the experts together in the Royal York hotel and they had a three days' conference. That they were experts, not dirt farmers, does not need to be enlarged upon, since they were at the Royal York hotel. They went on to tell what we were to do, and one oif the experts, in an interview which he gave to the Toronto Daily Star on August 31, 1932, said: "The future is bright for the Canadian farmer." Then they went on to tell how the farmer was to get into this bright market and about the bright future. He was to do it by using more extensively the scientific information which the expert possesses. You know, after all, the farmers have been a long-suffering people. We have had an immigration policy, which was referred to by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) this afternoon, which brought in, not manufacturers, not merchants, not doctors and not lawyers, but farmers, to put them on the land to produce more stuff. Then the experts show us how to produce not only what we produced before (but more than that. But nobody knows what we are going to do with what we produce. The Imperial conference tells us that we are to sell it on the British market with a 25 per cent exchange against us. I should like someone to try that. Will some Conservative farmer try sending his bacon, his apples, his cattle, at this time to the

The Address-Miss Mncphail
British market? The result will be very interesting. The cooperative live stock shippers made a compact more than a year ago with the Scottish British Cooperative in the old country to send them cattle and they toiled manfully to do this. A couple of months ago Mr. W. A. Amos went over there to pay the loss in exchange which amounted to several thousand dollars.


Mr. MULLINS:: They did not send cattle.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Let the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) make his own speech. He knows all about cattle. It does not matter whether they are finished or store cattle or live or dead cattle, we are paid in the English paper pound and when we try to convert it into Canadian currency we are losing 25 per cent of the price of the stock in Liverpool. Someone suggests that they lose 318 a head on steers. I know on one shipment of cattle amounting to seven hundred head that went from the stockyards in Toronto last summer just before we did not meet the Prime Minister in Ottawa, they lost $10,008 on that deal in exchange. If the same deal were to go through now with the cattle at S80 a head, they would lose $14,000 in exchange. For any responsible minister of the crown, able and intelligent men as ministers of the crown are-and I say that with all respect and deference-to stand in his place and say: Here is a great market for the Canadian farmer, is sheer nonsense. If they' want us to go on respecting them they had better admit this. There is nothing quite so provoking about a person as to be always right; that is the thing about the Prime Minister that infuriates me.
May I quote from Lord Rothermere-and I hope I may have time to do so, because the Prime Minister holds Lord Rothermere in such high regard that he met him in preference to meeting a delegation of four thousand farmers from two provinces, one-third of whom had been his ardent supporters, a delegation that was supported by the clergy of the province of Quebec and by a very large number of prominent citizens, not farmers, from the province of Ontario. But the Prime Minister was so busy-and one does not wonder at that-that he could not meet them, and his Minister of Agriculture was so overcome with work that afternoon he could not come down for half an hour. However, Lord Rothermere was honoured by an interview which we were not honoured with, although we had tried to make the arrangement on the 24th of May and had made about six contacts with the Prime Minister between that time and the
date of our coming. Lord Rothermere, when speaking of the exchange situation, said:
Canada's being on the gold standard and haying her currency "linked*' with that of the United States rather than Great Britain, was leading to "a slow assassination of the Dominion's trade and industry."
If he really got that through the Prime Minister's head, I do not regret that he had the interview. He ends up by saying:
Regarding Canadian currency, Lord Rothermere said:	"Canada's efforts to keep her
currency linked with that of the United States will mean slow assassination of the Dominion's trade and industry. Canada has a great future within the empire, but she can have none as an appanage of America."
I agree wholly with Lord Rothermere on currency. The odd thing about the Imperial conference which met here was that while they' devoted a great deal of time to trying to work out trade agreements, most excellent trade agreements, if they could be used, they dismissed the whole problem of exchange and money with a pious resolution, a resolution which said that interest rates should be lowered and that price levels should be raised, and they let it go at that.


An hon. MEMBER:: And they expect
Providence to do that.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Yes, but since we were given intelligence I fancy we shall be left to do it ourselves.
I would say in closing that while there are many other problems and while I do not maintain that an issue of new money based upon the resources of Canada would solve all our problems, I do say that if the federal government with the machinery they have could be induced to put a large issue of new money out into circulation without interest, it would do very much to raise the price of basic commodities in this country and it would lower our money to the level of the value of the British pound sterling, thereby enabling us to enter and make use of the market so aggressively displayed by the Prime Minister yesterday'.


Mr. ROBERT McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, although this session has been called, as the speech from the throne says, for the purpose of approving the agreements that were entered into at the Imperial conference, I feel that there is a duty devolving upon me, not only to give expression to the views that are held by the people in the constituency that I represent, but also to let the government know what in my opinion is the proper thing to do to overcome the adverse

i92
The Address-Mr. McKenzie
conditions which prevail in the country at this time.
In the governor general's speech, delivered on the 6th of October, there are three clauses to which I should like to give some attention, and one in particular that I shall go into in more detail. The first relates to the Imperial conference. That is of considerable importance and will be taken up in the house as a separate subject of debate. We had yesterday the explanations of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) regarding that conference, but I could not help noticing that as he was announcing his views concerning it, when he came to an item where there was an apparent reduction in tariff, he would look around among his supporters as much as to say, "Give me a little applause now." I could not help but think of the expression of Sir Arthur Salter with regard to Mr. Baldwin. Immediately after the conference concluded Sir Arthur Salter was reported to have said he believed that the Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin could be classed as one of the great Liberals of today. I wonder if the Prime Minister would not like to have Sir Arthur Salter, or some other distinguished man, say something like that about himself.
The hon. member who has just spoken (Miss Macphail) said she could not see that very much benefit could possibly accrue to the farming interests from the Imperial conference. We, in the west perhaps place too much emphasis upon wheat, but, Mr. Speaker, the very fact that wheat today is worth 11 cents a bushel less than it was the day the Imperial conference closed does not give us hope that much benefit can come to us from the Imperial conference. So much, then, for the Imperial conference, which we will have an opportunity of discussing a little later.
The next clause in the speech from the throne deals with the royal commission's report on railways and transportation. We are pleased indeed-I am, and the people I represent, I am sure-that this report does not attempt to impose a private monopoly upon us in connection with the railways. We are pleased that public ownership, as far as our railways are concerned, has been confirmed. Indeed, I might go further and say that public opinion in the part of the country from which I come would not permit of a monopoly in our railways, nor would it permit of a sale, or even a lease, of our publicly owned railway to the privately owned institution. In connection with that report I do not know whether this government will have anything to do with the question of buses, but I believe

the time has come when whatever government has the power of dealing with bus services should see to it that our railways, which are such large employers of labour, get a fair deal in connection with the bus service, especially in regard to the long haul.
The next paragraph deals with unemployment. Since two years ago last month, when we were called here for the short session for the purpose of ending unemployment, a great deal has been said on that question. It almost seems like threshing over old straw to speak of it further. But I am going to say one thing, that I want to impress upon this government. I believe I said it a year or two ago, but I want to impress it upon them again. It is this:	that there is as
much labour employed in the production of S100 worth of farm products, grain or whatever it may be, as there is in the production of manufactured products of equal value. For that reason the solution of this problem of unemployment, our economic problem as it exists today, will not be reached I think until there is an improvement not only in agriculture but in the other basic industries of the country. We must begin with the basic industries. Our manufacturing industries apparently are able to look after themselves fairly well for the reason that they are able to close down and discharge their employees. But we cannot have improved conditions unless we improve the condition of the primary producer. One reason why our manufacturing industries are idle today in spite of high tariffs is that the farmers have no buying power. I have here a clipping that I would like to read, taken from the Financial Post early in this year. It is headed:
Business Disappears
After two years of depressed prices for all farm products, and the third failure of crops in southern Saskatchewan, farm implement manufacturers in Canada approach 1932 possibilities in a very chastened spirit. With sales in 1931 of tractors at 873, combines at 178 and threshers at 493 for the prairie provinces, the situation must be almost bewildering to manufacturers. In previous years the sales were as follow's:	tractors, 17,143 in 1928,
14,557 in 1929, and 9,108 in 1930; combines, 3,657 in 1928, 3.295 in 1929, and 1,614 in 1930; threshers, 6,247 in 1928, 2,095 in 1929, and 2,034 in 1930.
In fact this business has for the time being almost entirely disappeared.
That proves, Mr. Speaker, that protection is not a remedy for the economic condition that exists today. Our industries are in a deplorable condition, as well as the farmers.

The Address-Mr. McKenzie
The next item is the one to which I wish to direct a little more attention. It has been dealt with to quite an extent by the hon. member who has just taken her seat. It is the clause which reads thus:
It is a matter of gratification to us all that in those large areas of the west where, during recent successive years, crop failure was followed by widespread distress, this season's bountiful harvest forecasts greatly improved conditions and makes possible a corresponding reduction of relief measures.
Just think, Mr. Speaker, conditions in western Canada as they are today, and the Prime Minister saying that "this season's bountiful harvest forecasts greatly improved conditions." From the point of view of bushels of grain the crop just harvested probably may be considered a bountiful harvest. Estimates have been given as high as
460.000.	000 bushels to 470,000,000 bushels, which in my humble opinion is possibly
100.000.	000 bushels too high. But the important feature is not the amount of grain that is produced. Four hundred million bushels at a proper price would mean a considerable amount, but not with the prices that prevail today. When I left the west at the beginning of this month to come down here, No. 1 northern wheat in the town in which I live was worth 33 cents a bushel at the elevator. That is below the cost of production. Yet they say this bountiful harvest is going to improve conditions, while the farmers are out money on every bushel of wheat they grow. Whoever is responsible for this statement was certainly not conversant with the actual conditions that exist on our farms. I wondered when I read that statement if by any chance the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) was responsible for it. It is very much on a par with the statement that he is reported to have made in the South Huron by-election, and I think possibly that ridiculous statement was partly responsible for the very large majority which the Liberal candidate received in that constituency. A few members of this house know to what I refer. The Minister of Agriculture went into South Huron and, as reported in the press, made the statement that the policies of this government during the past eighteen months had put $36,000,000 into the pockets of the farmers of Canada. Our farmers in Saskatchewan are wondering just where that money is, because they certainly did not get their share of it.


Mr. SHAVER:: What about the wheat
bonus?


Robert McKenzie: Hon. gentlemen over there would not support us in our efforts to get a bonus of one dollar an acre, and so we did not get any. I have driven over my constituency, which is largely an agricultural one, every summer for a good many years, and have in that way become well acquainted with the condition of the farmers. Within the last year or two I have noticed a great difference, not only in the countenances of the farmers themselves, but in conditions generally around their farms. I go to a man's place and instead of seeing his farm buildings nicely painted and his fences kept in repair, with the summer fallowing well done and the weeds kept down, I see the summer fallows growing weeds, and everything in a state of disrepair. I ask him how he is getting along, and he will reply:	You can see just how I
am getting along, and how conditions around here now compare with what they were two or three years ago. He will say:	I cannot
keep my summer fallow in proper shape or my buildings in repair, because the prices we get for our farm products will not enable me to hire men even at the low rate of wages that prevails to-day. Many farmers on a half section or a three-quarter section, and in a few cases on a whole section are attempting to do all the work themselves simply because they cannot afford to hire help. In some cases we find that they are not keeping their land in proper shape. Probably it is not ploughed, even the summer fallowing is not done. You ask what is wrong and they say:	Well, my
machinery has got into such a condition of disrepair that I cannot go on working my land. One man told me: "My ploughshares were worn out. The land got dry and I could not plough it." The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) pointed out a short while ago- and I hope that either the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Revenue, both of whom I see before me, will explain before this house rises just what was the reason for this -that there was one rate of tariff placed on the products of one parts manufacturing industry and a higher rate on the products of another. Unless we receive an explanation the farmers of our district will be able to draw only one conclusion, namely that when these smaller independent manufacturing firms started to manufacture parts a few years ago and sell them at lower prices, the large manufacturing industry came to the government and persuaded them to impose a higher tariff against the products of the smaller, independent manufacturers so that they could not cut the price. As a result of



The Address-Mr. McKenzie
the action of these independent manufacturing concerns, our farmers were able to buy their ploughshares for two and three and four dollars a ,pair less than they had formerly paid, but now that the extra duty has been put on, they will not be able to get that saving.	.
Some people-I meet them on the tram and at different places-ask why is it that our farmers do not go in more for mixed farming. Our farmers, Mr. Speaker, are not all fools. They know what is the best thing to do in the environment in which they find themselves. Some of them cannot go into mixed farming because of the scarcity of water, and that is the main reason. There are districts on the prairies where it is impossible to get water, and of course you cannot raise live stock unless you can get water. Other people will ask, why do the farmers let the weeds grow on their land? The reason is as I stated a moment ago, that a man on a half section or three-quarter section who formerly was able to hire a man when prices were better is now unable to afford to hire help, and consequently he cannot keep up with his work. Another answer to those people who say that our farmers are not trying is this: In the district in which I live, farmers are driving thirty and forty and fifty miles with teams and wagons to the mines to get their coal for the winter, simply because they do not see how they can get their winter's fuel supply in any other way. It is a common sight to see a man hauling coal from the coal mine to his farm fifty miles away. Our farmers did not do this when they were getting a proper price for their products and when they were getting along fairly well.	_
Further proof that conditions in the west have not greatly improved can be had by any member of this house who goes into the reading room and inquires for the Saskatchewan Gazette, in which he will find advertisements by municipalities in the province of Saskatchewan of from six hundred to seven hundred quarter-sections offered for sale in a tax sale list. That means that half the land of the municipality, and in some cases more than half, is up for sale for taxes. In addition to that, a further large part of the land in the municipality may have been advertised for sale for taxes in a previous year, and it will not be advertised again. So there is no proof there that there has been any great improvement in financial conditions in western Canada. While on this question of tax sales and the taxation of land in the province of Saskatchewan, I might mention that an amendment was made to the Municipal Act at
tMr. McKenzie.]
the last session of the Saskatchewan legislature, making it compulsory for the municipality to appoint a tax collector. Formerly, ever since the municipalities were organized twenty or more years ago, the secretary of the municipality had been the collector of taxes, remaining in his office for the collection. But now they are compelled to appoint a collector in each municipality with all the powers of a bailiff in order to collect the taxes. In the immediate district in which I live we have not a great deal of fault to find with the system, because they are using what we might call common sense in the collection of taxes; but in going about through the district I have heard some very caustic remarks.
A few days ago I took a clipping from the Winnipeg Free Press. This is a special despatch from Regina dated October 7, and is as follows:
Grain is seized in Saskatchewan by Municipalities. Farmers in Districts east of Regina express strong opinions on official action. ''I've got a gun in the house and I'd_ like to ^see anyone get any more wheat off this farm!"
Thus spoke a farmer in a district east of Regina, Tuesday, and his statement, although a little drastic in tone, just about expresses the opinion of many an agrarian in these parts.
Investigation of reports that municipalities were seizing grain for taxes and tax arrears, conducted Tuesday in four municipalities east of the city, reveals that seizure of -wheat for taxes and for advance of twine and binder repairs has left literally thousands of farmers in southern Saskatchewan with $100 and less with which to face the next 12 months. Municipal officials, it seems, are insisting on their claims for taxes, even though they amount to half or more of the total crop threshed this year.
The four districts were Fort Qu'Appelle, the southern end of which stretches down in the Edentvold district; south Qu'Appelle, which centres on the town of Qu'Appelle, Indian Head and Francis lying to the south.
Some details of the situation are:
In the rural municipality of Indian Head, where there are about 300 farmers a total of 231 seizures for taxes have been made.
At this point may I add that the Indian Head district is by no means a poor farming district. The hon. member from that district will bear me out in my statement. It is about thirty-four years since I resided for a short time in that vicinity, and I know that at that time it was well built up, a splendid farming country, and recognized as one of the best wheat growing areas in the prairies. The article continues:
In the other three municipalities visited, taxes are being collected by the municipality through having elevator agents make over the storage tickets on grain delivered to them, to the municipality. Very few farmers, it appears, were able to take advantage of the relief commission's 70-cent pegged price plan for repaying

The Address[DOT]-Mr. McKenzie
relief advances, since they did not have enough wheat to live on after taxes had been taken.
The plain fact of the situation is that, with the farmer getting around 30 cents a bushel for wheat, and with a light yield of less than 10 bushels per acre, he has not enough wheat to go around to all his creditors, and if his crop is seized for taxes or taken for relief repayments, he has not enough left to live on. Added to that he has to save enough for seed for next spring.
Binder repairs and twine relief given this fall by the Saskatchewan Relief Commission represents the first charge to be met by farmers, after that comes taxes, and the situation revealed in the municipalities visited was that other creditors came nowhere, since the wheat did not last for their turn. Collectors for machine firms, loan companies and other creditors of the farmers are very active, the farmers report, but there is nothing for them in most cases.
One farmer in the rural municipality of South Qu'Appelle stated he had $11 left with which to live throughout the winter. It appears that the Saskatchewan Relief Commission -will have a bigger problem than they anticipated early in the season, for even after a man has enough grub in the house he will need more than $1 a month to tide him over.
That sets forth the actual conditions existing on the farms in western Canada. With such distress we wonder that the Prime Minister in the speech from the throne could have spoken of greatly improved conditions which made possible a reduction in relief measures. Today relief is needed in western Canada far more than it was at the time of the special session held two years ago. Then, why is it that whoever is responsible for the preparation of the speech from the throne has stated that a reduction in relief measures may be expected?
In the address delivered on October 11 by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) he expressed wonder as to whether or not the Prime Minister and the Liberal party were going to be converted to his viewpoints and policy. I have always contended that in Canada there is room for only two political parties, that the Liberal platform is broad enough to indicate all those with a forward outlook. In my view the main difference between the two political parties in Canada is that the Conservative party have always been satisfied to maintain and preserve the old order of things, and the Liberals, on the other hand, have advocated any measure which would help to improve the social and economic conditions of the people. Even today, we hear the Prime Minister and the members of his party lauding the policy of the Conservative party as it obtained in the days of Sir John A. Macdonald. They glory in the thought that today they are following the same policy, but
forget entirely that since the days of that leader, two million or more people have located between the great lakes and the Rocky mountains.
The hon. member twitted the leader of the Liberal party and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) on some of the remarks they had made recently. I want to say that I am one hundred per cent behind our leader in the statements he uttered during the campaign of the South Huron byelection. We are ready to go forward as fast as the people will follow us. There have been times before when the Liberal party went forward in advance of public opinion. They did so in 1911, and again in 1930. I believe that had the people understood the Dunning budget as well in the summer of 1930 as they understood it six months later, there would have been a great change in the votes polled for the Liberal party.
In his address on October 10, the Prime Minister made one statement to which I shall refer. At page 54 of Hansard, he is quoted as follows:
I put this question to every individual member of the house. Let him go home with it tonight and let him answer it to his own conscience: If it were possible for the chief products of Europe, for the products of the United States to come uninterruptedly into this dominion, what would have been the result in the last two years?
I shall take a Scotchman's privilege and answer by asking another question. In the first place, I ask why he inserted the word "uninterruptedly", because no person has suggested an uninterrupted admission of goods into Canada. I would ask him this question: How much better would it have been had these goods come in under a ten per cent tariff and no more, instead of coming in, as some did, under prohibitive tariffs? In answer to that I would say that our industries in Canada would not be worse off because they are practically all idle anyway; but it would have had this effect, that thousands of families all across Canada who have scarcely sufficient to eat, and who are very badly in need of boots and clothing at this time of the year, might be able to buy these goods if they could obtain them at a reasonable price. But this they cannot do under the high tariff policy of this government. Not only that, however; if these goods had come in, even though they came in and sold here very cheap, for every dollar's worth that came in, the country that sent them in would want one dollar's worth of our goods in return. In further answer to the question of the Prime Minister, I would say, as has so often been said, that if we do

The Address-Mr. Gershaw
not buy goods from other countries we cannot expect them to buy ours; and if the industries in this country were not as well off under a tariff of 10 per cent as under the tariff they have at the present time of 30 and 40, yes, counting taxes of all kinds, probably 75 or 80 per cent, they are idle anyway. So that our people might as well be enabled to buy reasonably some of the things they sorely need.
I said at the beginning that I wanted to emphasize the condition of affairs as it exists today and to suggest some remedy. Let me in conclusion say to the government that owing to the conditions that exist in our country our people cannot stand any further increase in taxation. This government has increased every form of taxation-sales tax, excise tax, import tax, stamp tax and all manner of taxes, until the burden is far more than the people can bear. We cannot permit of any additional taxes being imposed, and if Canada is to return to prosperity we must remove the barriers that stand in her way.


Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat):: At this stage of the debate I desire only to refer to conditions that affect chiefly the constituency whence I come and to say a few words on the monetary system. The constituency of Medicine Hat was honoured recently by a visit from Lord and Lady Bessborough. At that time the people of Canadian or British birth and many born in distant countries gathered to welcome and to do honour to the vice regal party. The people of that district appreciated the visit and I wish on their behalf to thank the vice regal party.
Seven or eight years ago the then government established in the south of the Medicine Hat district a ranching research station, and during the last few years the officers of that station have been doing splendid work. They have been experimenting in the growing of grasses and in every line of ranch practice. From time to time they have been publishing information which will be of great value to the people throughout the district. Ranching is still carried on there on a large scale. You can see flocks of from eight to ten thousand sheep, and also cattle in herds amounting to thousands. There are, of course, many farmers working on a very much smaller scale, but whether operating on a large or on a small scale they are all either bankrupt or are rapidly and certainly drifting in that direction. They are selling their wool, meats, cattle and wheat at prices which do not cover lost of production. They find that the
IMr. McKenzie.]
articles which they have to buy have come down about 14 or 15 points, whereas the articles which they have to sell have come away down 70 to 75 points. They find themselves in an impossible position because taxes are increasing. The interest on the money which they owe is still high and they are worried and cannot understand why the price of money should stay up as high as it is while the price of everything else is down so low. I realize that all this has been said before; but to see the real condition of the people of that district you must go into the homes. There you will see women and children getting along without the variety of food they should have. Their clothing is sadly lacking, and books, magazines and papers never find their way into those homes. Not only is it impossible to send the older children to schools and colleges but it is quite impossible to buy ordinary school supplies for the younger children. In that locality, during the years that have passed, two large irrigation districts were developed. It happens that the farmers of these districts are even in a worse position than the farmers on dry land. They are worse off because they must meet heavy overhead charges in connection with digging the irrigation ditches, upkeep, cost of water, machinery and so forth. If prices were as they have been in the past they could meet those charges, but at present it is quite impossible for them to do so. Last year some of us who are trying to represent that part of the country brought forward in this house a resolution in an endeavour to persuade the government to do something to help the people on these irrigated lands. We pointed out that there was one crop in Canada which could be produced profitably and sold entirely within our own boundaries. I refer to the sugar beet crop. This house accepted the resolution as amended and asked the agriculture committee to make an investigation into the whole problem. This investigation was made. Witnesses were brought from all parts of the country and were able to show that the growing of sugar beets and the manufacture of beet sugar would be a profitable industry. They found that where factories were available the farmers were able to make a good income from sugar beets. More than that, it created a great amount of work. It provided freight for the transportation companies and helped greatly to develop stock raising and similar industries. It was pointed out, however, that, owing to the low price of sugar, assistance was

The Address-Mr. Gershaw
needed if factories were to get started. After deliberating the committee decided that they could not recommend the giving of this assistance, but they did point out one important factor, namely that the cane sugar refineries in Canada were enjoying very high protection. The committee reported that in their opinion the cane sugar people should undertake the manufacture of beet sugar. The report of this committee was presented to the house and passed without a dissenting voice. Many thousands of men and women who are interested in this matter have been waiting anxiously for some action, but nothing has been done. I am again bringing the matter up in the hope that this report will not be allowed to go into the limbo of forgotten things. I am hoping that some action will be taken to assure the people in the Medicine Hat district that a sugar factory will be built. This factory could be operated on a low cost basis because of the low price of natural gas for fuel. There is the necessary sunshine, fertile soil and a dependable supply of water to ensure a high sugar content in the beets. There are five sugar refineries in Canada but so far no arrangements have been made as to which one shall expand and take the responsibility in this connection. I am hoping that action will be taken before long and something accomplished as a result of the recommendation made in the report adopted by this house. That is one way in which I believe conditions could be improved in that community.
In 1931 the government paid a five cent bonus on wheat. I do not contend that that bonus was equitably distributed-if it had been based on an acreage basis it would have met the situation better. Men who had owned the land and provided seed should have had a share; but it did afford a great deal of relief. When that bonus was granted wheat was worth from 40 to 45 cents per bushel. If a bonus was needed then it is needed much more at the present time, because to-day wheat is selling from 26 to 29 cents per bushel in that southern country due to the fact that there is much No. 2 and No. 3 northern wheat. Wheat is a product which has made Canada famous in the markets of the world, and assistance to the wheat farmer would prove to be of benefit to every man and woman in the country because the farmer's money soon spreads in all directions.
I know -of one man who with the members of his family worked long hours on his farm and succeeded in producing two thousand bushels of wheat. After selling that wheat and allowing for his expenses he found he had
$40 left. If he had received the bonus he would have had $140, which would have been a great increase in his net income. I believe that this farmer with many others in that district is approaching rapidly the condition of a certain farmer of whom I heard not long ago. This family had only one cow and a few chickens left, but the mother of the family was brave enough to say: "We are not as badly off as our neighbours; they have to go seven miles for water while we have to walk only four."
These are the two suggestions I offer to the government. The first would not cost anything, while the second, when adopted a year ago, cost something like $11,000,000. However, if the government feels that it cannot accept either of these proposals, I have another one to offer which I think would help those men and women who have added the most to the national growth of the country.
I refer to the making of some change in our monetary system. I urge the government to join even at this late date the sterling group of nations and derive the results which would be expected to follow. I have listened to the debate but I have yet to hear a single hon. member argue that our present money system is adequately meeting human needs. Has our present system given us any measure of stability? In 1928 a bushel of wheat was worth $1.50; today the same bushel of wheat which will make the same amount of flour and feed the same number of people is worth only twenty-nine cents. Is our money system meeting human needs when we have so many hungry, so many poorly clothed and housed in the midst of great supplies of food, clothing and lumber? As time advances changes occur and new methods must be adopted. The circumstances under which a rigid gold standard worked smoothly bear little resemblance to the conditions pertaining in Canada at the present time.
Other countries have made changes. The house knows what President Hoover has been doing in the United States. We have heard of how he put out large sums of money in order to buy in government bonds. It was intended to increase the money in circulation and the recent rise in the stock market would seem to indicate that it succeeded. Owing to circumstances which have been referred to before in this house, Great Britain was forced to abandon the gold standard, and some seventeen nations followed her lead. The greatest economists including Sir Arthur Salter, Sir Basil Blackett, Sir Josiah Stamp, Mr. J. Maynard Keynes and others have seen no great calamity follow this step which the mother
The Address-Mr. Gershaw


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, even though we have been told, since coming down here, that the prime reason for our being summoned to parliament was to discuss the agreements entered into at the Imperial economic conference, I should like to discuss some matters in connection with the affairs of the country and matters contained in the speech from the throne.
First of all I should like to speak for a moment on some of the utterances of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in relation to the conference, with particular reference to his statements in which he accused the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) of endeavouring to throw every possible obstacle in the way of a successful fulfilment of the conference, and accused the members of the opposition, both inside and, I believe, outside the house, of going around hoping in their hearts that the conference would be a failure. I say, Mr. Speaker, that such thoughts are utterly baseless. I do not believe that there is a man in the house who, realizing the acuteness of the conditions by which we are faced, would be base enough to wish the conference a failure. What many Liberals did say was that if agreements were to be reached with the old country and other nations, tariff barriers would have to come down. They said that, and I think they said it rightly. As a matter of fact the conduct of the leader of the opposition during the conference is to be commended: for he not only kept quiet during the whole time, but was hardly observed at
all. And some close observers have said that it just suited the right hon. the Prime Minister and his government, because if he had not kept quiet they would have seen to it that he was quiet and out of the way. Contrast this, Mr. Speaker, with the attitude of the right hon. the Prime Minister when he went to England in 1930. The first man that the Prime Minister saw at that time was Mr. Stanley Baldwin, then leader of the opposition. He was not in power, but he went, and interviewed the Prime Minister and said, "Your policies are very acceptable to us.'
I ask the members of this house to contrast that attitude with the attitude of the leader of the opposition during the last conference at Ottawa. It seems that what they do is all right for those of Conservative thought and the Conservative party and is terribly wrong if done by those in opposition. In fact the Prime Minister's whole attitude has seemed to me to be "We are running this affair. Leave it to us; keep out. We have not only a mandate from the people but from heaven as well."
I was amused the other day when I heard the Prime Minister say he believed no purpose was served by speeches on the address made in this house, that they were ornamental rather than useful. The thought that went through my mind was, what he would have done had he been sitting on the opposition benches, and what some of those sitting with him would have done had we said, "Your speeches are ornamental rather than useful." As the poem says, "There is a good time coming," but we may not live to see the day they will remain silent.
I was particularly pleased the other day when the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) again brought up the matter of gasoline and gave some veiy valuable information to the house regarding the prices of gasoline and oil in this country. I believe that question should be kept alive until something is done to control the ramifications of the oil interests in Canada. The oil interests in this country in my opinion are just the oil interests of the United States. For them no boundary exists, unless for the purpose of more profits. I can well remember the Prime Minister in 1930 when the tariff of two and a half cents was placed on gasoline rising in his place and reading four affidavits to the effect that these companies would not raise the price of gasoline because of the tariff. I have learned something since coming to this house, and that is that when lawyers are reading anything you have got to be very careful. There was a little joker in that, it is the word "because." I venture to say that if

The Address-Mr. Reid
the government and the Prime Minister were challenged with the recent rise in the price of gasoline they would say "It is not because of the tariff, it is because of something else." But to my mind the impression intended to be given at that time was that the price would not be raised. But it has been raised, and the people of this country are being fleeced, to speak in plain language, by the oil interests. If profits are going to be too large in this country they just ship some of it across the line in one way or another. That is evident to even the man on the street. Take the dumping duty; no one has yet been able to learn the source of the figure of 7 or 6.5 cents on which that duty is based. They may purchase it at 3, 4 or 5 cents but when it comes to the boundary line it is priced at 7 cents, and no one yet has explained just who informs the official or where he gets that figure. But all these great patriotic oil interests-how patriotic they are-instead of seeing that the people of this country get the benefit from that dumping duty, simply pay the companies across the line 7 cents, give them 2.5 or 3 cents more than they are asking, amounting to millions of dollars of extra profit, rather than give it to the people of this country. That is how patriotic they are. One wonders how they obtain the protection they have obtained. I say take off the 2.5 cents a gallon and the dumping duty, and the people of this country will be able to purchase gasoline at 10 cents instead of 27 cents. It was said that if the examination by the committee had been carried a little further it could have been fully proven that gasoline could be laid down in this country, without dumping duty or customs tax, at some 8 cents per imperial gallon.
The Prime Minister the other day made some mention of cheap nostrums and soapbox orators in connection with the question of monetary inflation and finance. I have here an article that I would like to read, and if he likes he can apply that appellation to this man, who in my opinion has some considerable standing and is at least as wealthy as the Prime Minister. I refer to Mr. Ford. He says this is an editorial from the Vancouver Sun:
As long as a money system helps life it is allowed to exist; when it begins 'to cramp and hinder life it should be discarded. Money exercises a strange magnetism on most minds. In itself a conveyor of goods between man and man, money has been made a symbol of power over man; and abuse of that power has now become a strangulation in the exchange of goods.
A money system that served mankind thus badly was foredoomed to challenge. It is not man's wisdom that has challenged it, but the laws of nature,-or shall we say the laws of [Mr. Keld.I
God. Money and credit, which should come under the control of government, has been
farmed out" to private interests, like sandwich concessions at a country fair, until, scorning to be the handmaid of the people it has sought to be their mistress.
When we think of money, we think of stock markets and banks, but it is little use to inveigh against either. Both markets and banks, when they perform their proper functions, are of service to society. But when they fall down on the job of distribution we should mark their system for challenge and change.
Now it may well be that he had some idea of nostrums himself, but the average citizen is beginning to ask very seriously and in greater numbers just why the government of the country cannot issue their own money to themselves instead of giving it to the banks at 3 per cent, and then borrowing it back at 5 or 6 per cent. That is being asked, and asked very seriously, and so far I have not heard any supporter of that position explain it. In my own mind I am quite satisfied as to why the revision of the Bank Act has been postponed for another year. The veil of mystery has fallen to some extent, or been torn away-that veil of mystery that has been woven around this thing we call finance and money; and it has been found to be not such a mystery after all. In my opinion the bankers are really worried, feeling that if the Bank Act revision came up at the present time, when it was through they would not be in the enviable position, nor hold the grip on the people that they have to-day. They fear criticism.
But in case Henry Ford is not accepted as a good authority I will quote Lord Melchett, whose statement has just created a stir in British economic and banking circles. He says-I quote from the same newspaper:
The world is infinitely better off today than it was in 1929-
That is, in goods.
but we cannot enjoy the fruits of progress unless we devise a new means whereby more of the world's goods can be consumed, by our unemployed and the millions of people who still have an insufficient quantity of them in a world of plenty. We crave economic stability, but to achieve it we must completely revise our views of economic and financial questions. We have got to learn to increase bank credit and money to fit commodities and 9top trying to reduce commodities to fit money.
The spectacle of destroying thousands of tons of food and goods simply because they cannot be fitted into our profit and credit system, is abhorrent. The principle is stupid and vicious and must be changed; it shows the necessity of making bank money and credit as cheap and as available as food and goods and commodities are abundant.
I think that should be taken very seriously to heart by those who mention cheap nostrums and soap box oratory.

The Address-Mr. Reid
I have just one more article along that line which I wish to quote. It is from the Toronto Saturday Night, and this, by the way, touches also upon the economic conference. In that paper, Mr. Collingwood Reade says:
While the politicians are meeting to discover how they can avoid receiving good things from other lands and persuade peoples abroad to accept the commodities which their own people would be glad to have, the financiers and money experts are meeting to explain just why it is that they cannot be expected to finance the consumption of the world's surplus by the needy, who produced it. It is all very bewildering. It has to do with the distribution of a particularly useless yellow metal; with debts which the lender doesn't want to collect and which he nevertheless still seeks to preserve. It is affected by the very natural unwillingness of the borrower to borrow any more imaginary bank money to set up capital structures for the production of goods for which there is no market.
I am also in hearty accord, Mr. Speaker, with the resolution on the order paper standing in the name of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) reading in part as follows:
Therefore be it resolved that in the opinion of this house, the government should give serious and immediate attention to the question of debts and interest rates within this country, and the possibility of their reduction, either by way of direct action, or by the submission of the entire problem to a special committee of this house, in order that the subject may be fully enquired into, and if possible, some solution found.
As the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw) has pointed out, the debts of this country are colossal, reaching as they do the gigantic sum of over five billions of dollars, or a debt per capita of five hundred dollars. How on earth ten millions of people are ever going to pay that sum at the present high rates of interest I must confess is quite beyond me, and if the Prime Minister had been very anxious to do some good and lasting thing for this country, he should have taken a lesson from the old country and converted many of these debt bonds to a lower rate of interest. At the present high rates of interest I do not see how we can ever carry this staggering load of debt. The Prime Minister, in replying to the leader of the opposition, referred to Jeremiahs the other day. I would like to remind him and hon. members that it is not always wise to quote from the good old book because if I remember the Scriptures, Jeremiah pointed out to the people at that time that if they did the things which he said they should do, good would follow, but that if they did not, desolation would cover the land. I leave that thought with the Prime Minister and the members of his party, because Jeremiah's words proved to be only too true.
Even at the risk of being branded by the Prime Minister as another Jeremiah, I am going to say a few words with regard to agriculture. It is said by some that the turn has come, and some have even said that agriculture is on the mend. I have before me the accounts of two shipments of farm produce that were made from British Columbia. One man shipped two hundred sacks of potatoes this year and received for the shipment some $4 per ton. With such prices farmers would be better off among the unemployed, because it means that the farmer is actually going into debt, whereas amongst the unemployed he would at least be getting a little sustenance. The other was the shipment of a 440-pound sow to the Swift Canadian Company Limited. This shipper received the magnificent sum of $8.76.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: He was
lucky.


Thomas Reid: Probably he was, but in view of such prices I ask how anyone can say that agriculture is on the mend, and why should we be called Jeremiahs because we dare to place these facts before the house?
In addition to the curtailment of employment British Columbia is now faced with the importation of agricultural products from Alberta. We thought we were doing fairly well in the matter of eggs until Alberta began to ship its surplus eggs into British Columbia and drove the price down last week to eleven cents. They are paying the farmer for milk 23 and 25 cents a pound butter fat, or one dollar for the ten-gallon can. I am not going to go much further into the question of agriculture because I have some matters in connection with unemployment which I wish to place before the house.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members to your right do not like it very much when we throw up to them what they said in 1930. But I well remember that before the election of 1930 the present leader of the opposition, then Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), was frequently challenged in this house for not doing something to relieve unemployment, and in reply he stated that under the British North America Act that was primarily a provincial and municipal matter. The present Prime Minister challenged that statement, and when the election campaign came on he swept this country with very definite prom-
The Address-Mr. Reid

ises. He said in effect that he would take care of the situation. He held out to the people that the Liberals had said that nothing could be done by the federal government to relieve unemployment because it was purely a provincial and municipal matter, but if elected he would take care of the situation. I was therefore rather surprised the other day when the Prime Minister in no uncertain terms told us that the relief of unemployment was the duty of the provinces and of the municipalities. That was just the reverse of the position he took in 1930; and remember, unemployment at the present time-I am speaking of British Columbia-is far greater than it was in 1930; in fact, it has reached an extent which was never dreamt of in 1930. There are now some 80,000 people in British Columbia-this is the official figure given by the provincial government to the Dominion government-who are either unemployed or in need of relief, and thousands of whom are destitute. Now what happened this year in regard to unemployment? The premiers met in the month of May and we were told before the end of last session that the agreements were just about to be signed by the various provinces. After going home I found that further negotiations took place and weeks of suspense followed, with telegrams passing back and forth, but still with no plan formulated and no progress made. In fact, many municipalities are carrying on today merely in the hope that they will be paid. They have no assurance to that effect either from the Dominion government through the province or direct from the provincial government itself. Then on September 30 a new plan was announced, and the Vancouver Daily Province came out with these large headlines:
Next Winter's Belief Estimate is $4,500,000- Program of Government Officially Announced- Expenditure on Direct Aid Only-Immediate Survey to be started by New Board.
The new board was appointed to go into the whole question. Plans were made and a program outlined by the provincial government, but instructions from Ottawa ordered them to halt. Now we find that this board is still awaiting the text of the federal program on relief. In the Colonist of October 10 I find the following:
Hon. J. W. Jones stated yesterday the provincial authorities have not yet received word of the new federal policy on relief for western Canada. If this policy should be one of direct relief, with single men to be placed in camps, it would be a continuation of the course followed by the province for the last eight months. In the absence of express advices from Ottawa, Mr. Jones declined to comment on news reports which hinted that control of

relief in municipal centres may be shifted to the shoulders of the province. During the day the government asked the federal authorities for early advices on its relief policy for the west.
Four months have elapsed since hon. members met in this house, yet there has been no settlement concerning relief or agreement of any kind between the federal government and provincial and municipal authorities. That condition exists despite the fact that the situation is getting worse, if that is possible. Many municipalities have appealed to the government of British Columbia, but have been told to appeal to Ottawa. Provincial authorities know very well that Ottawa will turn down all appeals, because both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour have stated very clearly that the Dominion government will act only through the provinces. No financial help has been given to the municipalities, to help them finance, although we were told last session during the discussion on the relief bill that the Dominion government would come to the aid of municipalities unable to finance themselves, if representations were made by the provincial government. The situation is becoming more serious daily. I know of one municipality nearly in the receiver's hands, and others are threatened. The provincial government has been asked in one instance to appoint a commissioner. There are other municipalities barely managing to carry on, after having long negotiations and trouble with the banks.
I find fault with the assurances given in this house that financial aid would be given to those municipalities unable to carry on, and which, up to this date, have not received any help or any assurance that help will be given. There can be no doubt that the government is aware of the unfortunate circumstances in which some of those municipalities find themselves.
Another matter which forms part of the unemployment problem, and with which I am not in accord, is the government's policy in regard to forcible deportations which have taken place throughout the country, and particularly in the province of British Columbia. Many municipalities and some cities having great burdens on their hands because of those in destitute circumstances, have learned through information given them on relief slips that some of these people have been in the country less than five years. Throughout practically the whole of this year, an average of fifty people per month have been deported forcibly from the city of Vancouver. I claim many of those people, if not all, would if

The Address-Mr. Bertrand
given a chance make gcod citizens. Why challenge a man or a woman for being in destitute circumstances when we know that to-day it is impossible to find work and in many cases difficult even to find sustenance? Those men and women came to Canada in good faith; some have come from the old country and others from central Europe. To my mind it is most unfair that these people should be forcibly deported just because under present economic conditions they have been compelled to accept some form of charity from a city or municipality. I believe a change should be made in our immigration laws which would put a stop for the present to many of these deportations. I wonder what the feelings will be in the old country when those hundreds arrive back with the stigma on their names that they were ejected from Canada for what under our law is termed a crime. Further, although in the city of Vancouver there are forty oriental families in distressed circumstances, there has been no move whatever to return them to the land of their birth.
In closing I have only two statements to make, first that the high tariffs of this government have nearly put the country out of business, and second, that no good will result until we have a governmental attitude that accords men the same consideration as money.
Mr. ELIE O. BERTRAND (Prescott) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, when the official
gazette announced the opening of this session, rather early this year, we were informed that we would have to deal with the various treaties prepared at the Imperial economic conference, and which were to be presented to the various parliaments of the empire. It is nevertheless a fact that-although we take a great interest in such proceedings, hoping that these treaties may produce all that can be expected for the people of this country as well as for those of other parts of the empire -as representatives of the people, we cannot hope that these agreements will bring us, in the near future, the immediate relief that the masses have a right, at present, to expect from the government. Therefore I shall be frank, sir, and admit that after scrutinizing the speech from the throne, I find it difficult to find in it anything which might bring relief, in the near future, to the less privileged classes of our population. When we consider the difficult situation in which are the Canadian working and farming classes, we really wonder whether the government could not, in the course of this session, and even before adjournment, adopt measures to relieve these various classes of our population.
When speaking on the budget last year, describing the sad lot of our farmers, I quoted statistics covering the last 20 years and showed that the income of the farmer was less last year than it was 20 years ago, because the sale price of his products had greatly fallen. On the other hand, the price of goods which he required was much higher than in the past, while the taxes levied on this class of our community had greatly increased. When endeavouring to describe the rather sad lot of our Canadian workmen and farmers, almost at the door of bankruptcy, the only answer which I received from the government was given to me by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains, the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) in the following words:
Before proceeding with my remarks, I should like to say to my hon. friend the member for Prescott (Mr. Bertrand) that my criticism is not levelled at him, for I congratulate him on the high plane of his speech as well as on the great effort he displayed in order to find fault with the government.
It is, sir, about the only consolation we obtained, after the description we gave of the pitiful condition in which were our people. And notwithstanding the pleasure it gave me to be congratulated by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains, on the high plane of my speech, it is nevertheless a fact that the people of my constituency find it difficult to believe that we must make a great effort to criticize severely the government. The people certainly blame this government for not having the present situation in hand and not carrying out the pledges made at the election of 1930. It is not a pleasant task for us to keep repeating these pledges, but when we draw their attention to the people in distress, the government simply put up the plea that we only wish to criticize their policy and make the situation more difficult for them. At the last general election, we appealed to the people by telling them that if the depression existing in other parts of the world was felt in our country, the only solution was to find markets for Canadian goods, if we wanted to sell the surplus of our products and provide work for the Canadian workmen. The answer to this was that we felt too uneasy about our foreign trade, that the Conservative party's policy was first to protect the domestic trade and provide markets for the Canadian industries and in acting thus the workman would have ample work and the farmer would easily dispose of his products. Our opponents, however, did not say what they intended to do with the surplus of our products, they simply stated
The Address-Mr. Bertrand

that they wished to keep the Canadian market for domestic products and that prosperity would follow.
At that period, sir, we had about 117,000 unemployed in this country. In April, 1932, the number had increased to 450,000. Today the number of unemployed is certainly over 500,000, and many whose work brings them in contact with the unemployed contend that it is close to 700,000. If there was sufficient ground to blame our fiscal policy, two years ago, because there were 117,000 unemployed in this country, have we not the right, today, to draw the attention of the government to its own policy, seeing that we have, at present, nearly 700,000 unemployed in Canada?
In this respect, I shall read the text of an appeal made by the Hon. A. D. McRae, in a letter written on June 28, 1930, and addressed to the people of Canada:
Claiming everything that is creditable, the Liberals refuse to take responsibility for the present economic conditions which they have created. It is evident that the public has no patience with the Liberal effort to revive their blue ruin cry of '25 and '26. The time lias surely come when we must discuss unemployment conditions, and other serious issues involved in our unfortunate economic situation, even though the Liberals would have you shut your eyes to them.
That is the appeal of the chief organizer of the Conservative party to the Canadian people. And when we mention the distress prevailing in this country, we are told that we are straining a point to find fault with the present administration. I stated last year that the farmer was practically on the eve of bankruptcy. This is absolutely true. The farmers, in my district, are experiencing great hardships. They are excellent workers, offsprings of pioneer families who cleared the land and made it productive, who bequeathed to their progeny estates upon which the latter depended to develop the legacy left to them. All their hopes have been frustrated. Conditions were far from being as bad, when at the last election, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) appealed to the farming class in a letter dated July 8, 1930, and which reads as follows:
We will go further and take the necessary steps to foster and develop our agriculture and the live stock and dairy industry, now so badly neglected, to protect for our farmers the home market, and to assist them to regain their position in the world market. That much I promise the dairymen of this country if I am entrusted with the government.
The people of my county put no faith in these alluring pledges, nevertheless the Con-

servative leader of the day was chosen by the Canadian people to administer public affairs. Having given these pledges, the farmers had a right to expect that he would carry them out and trusted that better returns would result from the sale of their products. How great was their deception! Instead of seeing their products selling dearer, the prices fell from month to month and week to week, out of all proportion. I shall quote, to bear out my statement, from the Economist of September, 1932. Assuming as one hundred the figure on which is based the ratio of all products for the year 1926, you will find that the whole of the farm products for 1930 were worth 86-6 and had dwindled down to 66-8 in August, 1932, therefore, we find a loss of 20 per cent on every dollar. If you take the farm products separately, that is those of the fields and those of livestock -the latter are of special interest to the farmers of my district-you will note, taking always the figure one hundred as a base for 1926, that farm products in 1930 were quoted at 82-3 and in August, 1932, at 48-3. Therefore, the farm dollar is now only worth 48-3 in farm products, that is a decrease of 34 per cent in two years.
That is far from what the farmer expected from the Conservative policy which was to guarantee to him the domestic market and give him a large share in the foreign markets.
As to the products of the fields in 1930, the figures indicated 70 and in August, 1932, it had decreased to 41-7. Consequently the farm dollar concerning field products being only worth 41-7, it had decreased 28-3 per cent from 1930 to August, 1932.
As regards live stock, the ratio in 1930 was 102-9, and in August, 1932, it had fallen to 59-3. Therefore the farm dollar, as regards live stock, being 59-3 has decreased 42-6 per cent. With reference to articles of first necessity which the farmer must purchase, without mentioning the taxes which he has to meet. Quoting again The Economist, in 1930, the ratio of retail prices and farm hands was 99-2, and in August, 1932, 81-5. Therefore the Canadian is obliged to pay 81-5 for articles of first necessity and for the necessary work to be done on the farm, with an income of 59-3 peir cent for live stock, 41-7 for products of the fields and 48-3 for all farm products. The farmers in my district find the situation unbearable.
In June, at the annual meeting of the county council, the farmers whom I have the honour to represent and those of the neighbouring county, applied to the council for a reduction in the taxes to be levied on them.
r:	OCTOBER 13, 1932	205
The Address-Mr. Bertrand
The answer of the council was that they had not the authority to do so. The farmers then requested that the council address itself to the provincial authorities in order that they be relieved from taxation pn provincial and municipal roads constructed through loans and sponsored by the provincial legislature, under the direction of the latter's engineers. They further requested that taxes for the administration of justice, old age and mothers' pensions, those levied under the act relating to neglected children and that relating to hospitals, as well as those levied under the Elections Act which charges a great part of the election expenditure to the counties of this province, be reduced. The farmers contended that they could not pay these taxes and meet their liabilities; if the government did not relieve them to a large extent from the burden of taxation they would be forced to repudiate their debts. Nothing was done as regards this matter and the province's answer is still awaited while the accounts for the yearly taxes will be due in a few days. Last year some of them were paid by a loan while the others are still due. In a few days the farmers will be handed their annual tax bill for 1932. There is absolutely no escape. This is why I deemed it my duty to rise in the house and draw your attention to 'the conditions prevailing among the farmers in my district. From what I have heard, the same situation exists in the west, in Quebec and throughout Canada. The government should therefore act immediately toward relieving the farmers.
Notwithstanding the moratorium in force in Ontario, there is a large number of farmers whose chattels have been seized for taxes and other debts which they were unable to meet. After disposing of their farm implements, live stock and all they possess, they find that there hardly remains enough to defray their expenses and pay the previous year's taxes. The moratorium permitted them to remain on their land, but there remains absolutely nothing to these people to carry on fanning. What will become of them? They certainly cannot exist very long under such conditions. These good Canadians rely at present on the pork remaining in the salting tub, the last crop of potatoes, and on what they were able to save from distress while awaiting the time when they will be forced to join the ranks of the unemployed or suffer from hunger.
The government should enact the necessary measures in order to place at the disposal of these farmers an emergency loan which would keep them on the farm and prevent the situation from growing worse in our villages and
towns, thereby preventing the spread of unemployment. We foresee that conditions will be worse next spring and fear that 50 per cent of our farmers may be forced to abandon their farms and thus forfeit the legacy left to them by their forebears.
In our district milk sells at 50 to 60 cents per 100 pounds. Steers on the hoof at 1 cent per pound; hogs on the hoof, hardly 3i to 4 cents per pound. These prices are not sufficient to defray the cost of production in many cases. How can we expect the farmer to remain on the land under these conditions?
Before the various treaties between the different parts of the empire are approved I must appeal to the government to appropriate an emergency loan to relieve these farmers. A few miles out of Ottawa, there was held yesterday, a congress of farmers which voiced the same request to the government; this request of the farmers will, before long, certainly reach the agricultural department. If we are anxious to prevent the farmer from repudiating his liabilities and following in the footsteps of the American farmers, we shall have to enact measures not only to safeguard large interests or to maintain and increase trade between our country and other parts of the empire, but also to protect our people from want.
I read in the Analyst that in the United States, a country with a high tariff wall like ours has been for the last two years, the farmers, in large numbers, are bankrupt. According to quotations from that newspaper, from December 30, 1931, to June, 1932, $157,000,000 were lost by those who had made loans to farm owners. Either the farms were sold at a loss or the mortgage reduced. The same thing is happening in our country. A notary in my county told me, a few days ago, that half his work at present consisted in making out deeds to reduce the amount of the mortgages, for instance, from $4,000 to $2,500 and the like, the money lender was willing to bear this loss in order to allow the farmer to remain on his land.
If such sacrifices can be made by the small money lender in an endeavour to safeguard this industry upon which rests our economic structure, could not the government do their share and help the farmer as much as possible? Could they not enact the necessary measures to protect the farmers and relieve them, to some extent, of the burden of taxes? If again, the future gave us some hope that the situation would improve, we could say: This crisis will last perhaps a little longer but prosperity will soon return and our people will again see sunny days. However, in order not to har-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman has spoken for forty minutes.


Mr. BERTRAND (Translation):: Seeing
that my time has expired, may I simply state that I trust the government will enact the necessary measures so that all classes may be dealt with fairly.
On motion of Mr. Vallance the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Stevens the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Friday, October 14, 1932