1934-02-08

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

Mr. GRAY:: 1.	Is it a fact that at the end of the fiscal year 1933, out of 14,853 pension applications outstanding, 10,000 were inactive?
2.	If so, how many of the 10,000 outstanding applications mentioned therein were inactive:
(a)	due to the failure of the applicants to comply with statutory requirements; (b) due to the inability of the applicants to comply with the statutory requirements?
3.	In the case of: (a) were any steps taken by the veterans' bureau to assist the applicants;
(b)	were the applicants definitely advised that their claims should be withdrawn?


Mr. MacLAREN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) and (b) All cases were inactive due to failure or inability of applicants to submit evidence in support of their claims. No definite information is available indicating the number inactive due to failure to obtain evidence and the number inactive due to inability to obtain evidence, but no case was classified as inactive where it appeared that additional relevant information might be obtained.
3.	(a) and (b) In all cases steps were taken by the veterans' bureau to assist applicants. The veterans' bureau did not definitely advise withdrawal of these claims but did advise applicants that no useful purpose would be served by proceeding without additional evidence.


PENSIONS TRIBUNAL MEMBERS
Mr. REID:: 1.	What are the names of the former members of the pensions tribunal?
2.	When was the said tribunal abolished?
3.	How many of its members were reappointed to government positions?
4.	What remuneration or gratuity, if any, has been ottered to former members of the tribunal not reemployed?


Mr. MacLAREN:: 1.	Lt. Col. Thomas Morrison; Col. Lawrence Howard MacKenzie; Lt. Col. N. P, MacLeod; Col. J. T. E. Gagnon; Capt. John I. Grover; Capt. Leo Warde; Capt. E. C. MacKenzie; Col. C. W. Peck; Major J. F. McKay; Brig-Gen. H. F. McDonald; Lt. Gen. Sir R. E. W. Turner; Major C. C. Thompson.
2.	September 30, 1933.
3.	One,
4.	The matter has not yet been determined.
Questions


BRITISH COLUMBIA COAL IMPORTS
Mr. NEILL:: What was the tonnage of coal imported from the United States into British Columbia in the calendar years 1931 to 1933 inclusive, showing each year separately, both as to bituminous and lignite separately, and the duty collected each year on each grade?


Mr. MATTHEWS:: Imports of coal from the United States entered for consumption in the province of British Columbia with import duties collected in the calendar years 1931 to 1933:
	Calendar		Import duty
Item	year	Tons	collectedBituminous coal.	. 1931	2,298	SI,473 751932	2.424	1,818 001933	7220	5,415 00Lignite	. 1931	6,387	93 601932	2,831


Alan Webster Neill: 1933	2,098	
What was the tonnage of coal imported into British Columbia from the United Kingdom during the calendar year 1933 showing each grade separately and the amount of duty: (a) regular duty and (b) dumping duty, collected on each grade?


Robert Charles Matthews: Imports of coal from the United Kingdom entered for consumption in the province of British Columbia with import duties collected during the calendar year 1933:
Import duty Tons collected
Anthracite	
3,647	___Bituminous coal	
18,850	86,749 50*
* Does not include special duty.
Special or dumping duty as applied to individual commodities is not compiled separately in the departmental records. At ports where importations of any particular commodity were few the private business of individuals or concerns would be disclosed if such information were given, and this would be contrary to established practice.


THE GLADES, N.B., POSTMASTER
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Is William Simpson, postmaster at The Glades, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, what salary did he receive from Post Office Department, during calendar year 1933?
3.	Has said William Simpson, also a contract for carrying mails between The Glades post office and railway station at Kiver Glade?
4.	If so, how much does he receive per annum from department for this work?
5.	When will present contract expire?


Mr. DUPRE (for Mr. Sauve):: 1.	Yes.
2.	$734.26.
3.	Yes.
4.	8500.
5.	December 31, 1935.


RESTIGOUCHE COUNTY, N.B., FISHERY INSPECTOR
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Has Mr. John Jardine, of Campbellton, New Brunswick, been appointed fishery inspector for the county of Kestigouche, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, when and what is his salary?
3.	Who recommended Mr. John Jardine for the position?
4.	Were notices of the application for the position posted in the county of Kestigouche, New Brunswick?
5.	If so, where and when?
6.	Did Mr. John Jardine pass an examination under the Civil Service Act to qualify for this position?
7.	If so, where and when?
8.	Who were the examiners and what were the marks obtained by Mr. Jardine in this examination?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	No. Mr. Jardine was employed as a temporary fishery guardian.
2-8. Answered by No. 1.


POSTAGE ON NEWSPAPERS
Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	What amount of postage was paid in cash on newspapers for the year ending March 1, 1932?
2.	What amount of postage was paid in cash on newspapers for the nine months ending December 1, 1933, and what amount is estimated for the balance of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1934?


Mr. DUPRE (for Mr. Sauve):: 1.	$1,631,321.46.
2.	(a) $1,047,804.02; (b) $476,559.66.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-TIE CONTRACTS
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Have any contracts been awarded for railway ties in the county of Bonaventure during the years 1933 and 1934 by the Canadian National Railways?
2.	If so, to whom, for what quantity and at what price?
3.	Have any of these contracts been cancelled?
4.	If so, with whom?


Mr. MANION:: The Department of Railways and Canals has no information with r?speet to tie purchases by Canadian Nationai Railways, and the railway in the past has taken the stand that the bringing down of information of this nature is not in the public interest.

Wheat Shipments



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: What were the gross federal collections at Prince Rupert, British Columbia, for the respective years 1928 to 1933, inclusive: (a) customs; (b) post office; (c) telegraphs; (d) fisheries; (e) income office?
ministers' automobiles


Mr. DUGUAY:: 1.	From 1922 to date, what was the annual expenditure for the automobiles of each of the ministers, including chauffeurs, gasoline, oil, and other expenses in connection with the upkeep of these automobiles?
2.	From 1922 to date, what was the annual expenditure for the private railway cars of each of the ministers?


LAC SEUL, WATER STORAGE
Mr. HEENAN:: 1.	What is the estimated cost per acre for clearing land at Lae Seul, Ontario, for the purpose of raising the water storage capacity of Lac Seul?
2.	What amount of money has been spent on the project up to December 31, 1933?
3.	How many acres have been cleared up to December 31, 1933?
4.	What are the salaries of the officers in charge of supervision and what are the wages paid to the labour employed on the work?
5.	Are the men permitted to have a committee to make representations to the foreman with respect to conditions of employment?
6.	Are all supplies purchased from the city of Winnipeg instead of from the surrounding district; if so, why?
7.	What is the cost of potatoes laid down at Hudson?
8.	What is the cost of oats laid down at Hudson?


WHEAT AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) if his department is issuing any literature with respect to the wheat agreement, and if so if he would have copies of it laid on the table of the house?


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the only document I know about is the one the Prime Minister laid on the table, and it is not being issued by the department of which I am in charge. However, it is a document which, I believe, was prepared from the agreement and undoubtedly statistics contained in it were secured from the bureau of statistics.


STRIKE AT CHAPLEAU
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timis-kaming):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a
question of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon). I have in my hand communications from Ohap'leau, Ontario, to the effect that the strike is still going on, that the situation is becoming extremely critical and that last night 130 men were destitute and seeking relief. There is also information to the effect that strike breakers are being brought from the province of Qudbec. I would ask the government to take measures to prevent bringing in strike breakers from the neighbouring province and to help in the solution of this strike.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the matter to which the hon. member has drawn the attention of the house is one purely within provincial jurisdiction. So far as I am aware the federal Department of Labour has not had its Attention drawn to the situation to which reference has been made. Of course, we have conciliation officers, but we have found that in certain instances arising out of labour difficulties of the past few months the federal conciliation officer, upon reaching the scene of the disturbance was defeated in his conciliatory efforts by those whose design it was to keep the employers and emiplo3^ees from getting into contact, with a view to prolonging the strike. At anj^ rate, I shall look into the matter and learn what the situation is.
AIR MAIL SERVICES On the orders of the day:


Mr. WILFRED HANBURY (Vancouver-Buroard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Acting Postmaster General (Mr. Dupre) as to whether or not as yet the government has 'been able to define its policy with reference to transcontinental transportation of mail by air and, if not, I should like to know if he could at this time give to the house any definite date when he will be able to do so.


Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Acting Pc0i,-master General):: In reply to the hon. gentleman, I cannot make any announcement today, but I will look into the matter.
WHEAT SHIPMENTS On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): I have a question for the Min-

Wheat Shipments

ister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). With regard to the free shipment of 8,000 bushels of wheat from Fort William to the port of London, England, via Buffalo and New York, on December 7, 1933, a shipment which was apparently in conflict with the intent of the Anglo-Canadian trade treaty, 1932, under which a preference of six cents a bushel was to be allowed Canadian wheat shipped through British ports, may I ask the minister what action, if any, his government intends to take with regard to the breach which the British customs authorities have made in the government's policy of political and economic imperialism as applied to wheat?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker in the first
place the question of the hon. gentleman involved a great deal of assumption on his part and an ex parte judgment upon the British government for some action which it has not been demonstrated has taken place. Eliminating all the useless matter that was involved, may I say that the regulations governing the movement of Canadian wheat to the British market via a foreign country are British regulations which are set forth clearly in connection with their customs law. I have forgotten for the moment the name of the act, perhaps the British Duties Act, but it is well known and has been referred to frequently here. Those regulations are entirely under the control of the British government, and any movement of grain which complies with those regulations will undoubtedly be admitted by the British government in accordance with their own laws and regulations. I am not aware of any evidence that there has been a violation by the British government of the trade agreement between this country and Great Britain.


Mr. McINTOSH:: With regard to the
minister's statement, may I say, western Canada would like to see more shipments through Canadian and United States ports as well for the benefit of western producers.


SMELT FISHING SEASON
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. MICHAUD (Restigouche-Mada-waska):: May I ask the Minister of Marine
(Mr. Duranleau) if it is the intention of the government to extend the smelt fishing season in the Baie des Chaleurs in order to relieve the distress of the people of that district?


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: Some requests have been made

to the department to that effect, and the matter is under consideration.


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: You
had better hurry up in reaching a decision as the season will soon be over.


GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gobeil for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King.
Mr. L. E, PARENT (Terrebonne) (Translation) :	Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned on Tuesday evening last, I was discussing the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I was referring to agriculture and pointing out the recommendations made in the speech from the throne in connection with farm products; I was establishing the ratio between the prices of farm products and those of manufactured goods. I now wish to point out to the house the sad conditions under which our farmers actually labour, owing to the government's policy.
One must bear in mind that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is well acquainted with the present situation. Members of this house have, perhaps, not all read the publication "Canada 1934." At page 12 this is what we find:
Such .an uneven recession in prices-
The prices refer to farm products.
-worked extreme hardships because it seriously disturbed the relative purchasing power of different economic groups in the country.
Groups refer to farmers. This deplorable state affecting the Canadian farmer is due to the famous protection promised in 1930, which, however, only favoured manufactured products as it was so often proved in this house.
Let us briefly examine lvow the farmers suffer from such a state. Purchasing power is equivalent to product exchange or labour exchange or again service exchange. Through the medium of a national currency, namely, the dollar, in Canada. The farmer is forced to pay a tribute to the manufacturer, varying between 25 and 30 per cent, when he purchases the products of the latter. In other words the dollar earned by the farmer only represents 75 or 80 cents of the value in manufactured goods. The manufacturer, on the other hand, can, with a dollar's worth of his goods, purchase SI .25 worth of farm prod-

The Address-Mr. Parent
ucts. I shall quote some official figures in this connection. On mowing and binding machines, which are two indispensable farm implements, he paid under the Borden regime, a customs duty of 12-50 per cent; under the Meighen regime, the same percentage; under the Liberal adniinistration, half, namely 6 per cent; since this government has assumed power, 25 per cent; and under the preference schedule 28-75 per cent. The outcome, sir, is that when the farmer requires a mowing or binding machine, he must pay 28-75 per cent of customs duty, when purchased outside of the British Empire. I intend, now, to show that farm implements are not purchased in England but mostly from foreign countries; therefore, all Canadian purchasers must pay the duty, according to the tariff in force.
According to the Bulletin 423 of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, published in August, 1933, §203,089 of farm implements were purchased in June, 1933, of which $167,000 came from the United States subject to a duty of 25 per cent, while previously, under the Liberal regime, it was but 6 per cent, and there was only $14,791 worth imported from the United Kingdom. Under the Conservative tariff regime, the farmer therefore pays on almost 80 per cent of his purchases of farm implements, a customs duty of 25 per cent.
Let us examine what happens in the dairy industry, a greatly developed industry in Canada. No farmer can compete in this field of activity unless he has one, two and even three cream separators. According to Bulletin 423, August, 1933, statistics show that Canada imported, in June, 1933, 1,130 cream separators, of which 724 came from Sweden, subject to a duty of 25 per cent; 138 came from the United States, subject to a similar duty, and 72 came from Germany, also subject to the same duty, a total of 934 out of 1.130. There were, therefore, only 196 imported from the United Kingdom and entering the country free of duty.
Furthermore, according to Bulletin 576, February 1, 1934, one notes that almost half of our imports of farm implements in December, consisted of cream separators. Figures speak for themselves. Half o.f the imports of farm implements in December consisted of cream separators destined to the dairy industry. These imports were valued at $41,039. We imported 567 from the United States which paid a duty of 25 per cent, 166 from Sweden and 70 from Germany. This means that not one cream separator from the British Empire during that period entered Canada. Owing to the Imperial Economic agreements at Ottawa, the duty on all imports of farm imple-74726-241
ments coming from outside the empire, was raised. And according to the evidence furnished by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, the farmer is obliged to-day to pay a high duty in order to purchase what is indispensable to the farm, while he receives greatly reduced prices for his own products.
It is not astonishing, sir, that His Excel-lenicj' the Governor General could well afford making special recommendations to this government in order to fill the deficiencies existing. For the last three years, since this government has assumed power, nothing was provided for and in 1933 we note no change which might improve the lot of such an important class as the Canadian farmers.
Let us now discuss the Imperial Economic agreements. Our friends opposite make much capital over the slight improvement of the world or mternaitaional trade and they appropriate to themselves the whble credit for this; they contend that this improvement in trade is due to these agreements. The Imperial Economic agreements at Ottawa, sir, in my opinion, have not facilitated trade relations. The preference granted to the countries in the British Empire has not increased the sale of our products because our trade abroad has decreased since these Imperial agreements took place. Canada took advantage of the stabilization of currency existing between the pound sterling and our dollar. That is the greatest factor in the improvement which has taken place during the last months of 1933. If the government had not raised the tariff and closed foreign markets, our trade would have similarly benefited and this I contend would have been due to the stabilization of currency and not to the Ottawa agreements.
It must be pointed out, sir, that the supply and demand between two countries is automatically controlled rather than 'being the result of agreements, and that the stabilization of currency is the most powerful factor in establishing the possibility of exchange between two countries. I shall quote in support of this the views of an authority on the subject, those of the president of the Dominion Bank, one of the most important Canadian banks.
In .the course of the speech the president delivered before the general meeting of the shareholders in the Dominion Bank, a speech published in the Ottawa Citizen, the following is how he expressed himself, speaking of our basic industries:
Lumbering is conspicuously better partly because of the rise in sterling exchange
[Stage Direction]


The Address-Mr. Parent
This corresponds to what I was stating just now.
-which has reopened the export markets, especially, the the far east and Great Britain although the situation with reference to Canada's participation in the British market needs to be cleared up, notwithstanding the conference agreements at Ottawa.
Those are the views of the president of one of our principal banks. They are of great import and confirm my assertion that the agreements at Ottawa were not the greatest factor in our trade improvement; it was the stabilization of currency between two countries.
I also believe, sir, that had our tariff not been so prohibitive to the countries outside of the British Empire, Canada would have exported more on the other markets where we would have had an easy access because in buying from other countries we necessarily forced the latter to barter and purchase from us. Exceedingly high tariff rates have paralyzed and partly closed our factories, reduced the people's purchasing power, plunged the country into the serious crisis we are at present experiencing, brought on unemployment and all the hardships which we had to suffer within the last two years.
Moreover, high tariff barriers were responsible for a decrease in customs returns, a decrease which will have to be compensated by various imposts and taxes, such as the sales tax of 6 per cent on all purchases made by the people; also other excise taxes.
Now, sir, taking the argument itself of the government in favour of its tariff or protection policy, may I state why the principles advocated daily in the -house-that the Imperial agreements were responsible for the trade increase with the British Empire, because a preference was granted-are false. No consideration is taken of the fact that, if this same preference or if the tariff had not been increased against other countries, the same principle could be applied. Were not the measures which proved advantageous to the countries of the British Empire, advantageous as well to the other countries?
In order to prove my contention, sir, may I quote the Dominion Bureau's statistics so as to show that, under the low tariff regime, we traded more abroad, while under that of high tariff, protection and Imperial agreements, our foreign trade decreased considerably. I shall first quote the figures in connection with the countries of the British Empire, I shall only mention those machine in the millions. In 1922, going back slights more than 10 years, at the end of the Conservative administration, we exported for $345,000,000 worth to countries of the British

Empire; in 1929, after seven years of Liberal administration, we were exporting $535,000,000 worth, this, under a moderate tariff regime. In 1932, after one yehr only of Conservative administration, our exports had dropped to $218,000,000, and in 1933, following the Imperial Economic agreements, at Ottawa, they had not increased but had remained about stationary, at $222,000,000. Let us examine our imports: In 1922, $149,000,000; in 1929, $257,000,000; in 1932,	$147,000,000, and,
finally, in 1933, they had reached the lowest level and only amounted to $120,000,000. Is that such a laudable result of which one can boast and thank this government? I doubt it.
But that is not all: At page 132 of the publication known as "Can'ada 1934" one finds that -in 1922, at the end of the Conservative regime, our total exports amounted to $740000,000; in 1929, $1,363,000,000, and, in 1933, under the high protection policy of -our friends opposite, $473,000,000. The Same ratio applies to our imports.
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate I do not think it is necessary to add anything to what has been said already, particularly by hon. members on this side. I refer especially to the able speeches delivered by the mover (Mr. Gobeil) and the seconder (Mr. Barber) of the address and to the splendid effort of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) who reviewed the whole political situation for the last three years and outlined wha-t the government propose to do in the way of bringing down legislation at this session. However, I feel I should take part in this debate in order to express my confidence in the government. I believe the people of the west, particularly the people in the eastern part of the province of Saskatchewan which I have the honour to serve, share with me in that feeling of confidence. I think the people realize what it has meant to the government to carry on the affairs of this country under present conditions and those which have existed for the past three years. Hon. members on this side, and I believe the people generally throughout the country, expect reasonable and constructive criticism from the opposition. In times such as these we should have at least reasonable cooperation and moral support. I suggest to the opposition the cooperation referred to the other evening by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa).
Throughout this discussion the opposition has been prone to charge at least some responsibility for the present condition of the country to the government. I do not think

The Address-Mr. Perley (Qu'Appelle)
any one party or any one government can be charged with full responsibility. However, I believe that there is certain evidence which can be produced to show that a large part of this responsibility lies at the door of the opposition. When this government took office in August, 1930, they found many problems facing them which had been in the making for two, three and even more years previously. There was the question of lost markets; there were no markets for the products of our forests, our soil and our mines. Does anyone believe that this government is responsible for that or for the transportation problem? Is this government responsible for the deficits in connection with the operation of our great transcontinental system? Are they responsible for the lack of economy, the gross extravagance of the late government and for the commitments, running into several million) of dollars, yes, into hundreds of millions of dollars, which were left on their door-step by the previous administration? I say that they are not.
I think the opposition will agree that the trade of the country is a barometer which indicates the trend of affairs. A comparison of the gross trade of this dominion in 1920 with that in 1929 will not prove very favourable to the administration of the late government. I have in my hand the Commercial Intelligence Journal of January 20, a publication which is available to all hon. members. At page 92 there is a table of exports from Canada to the United States of principal commodities such as are produced on Canadian farms. We find that in the last six months of 1920 the export trade amounted to SI 19,000,000 and in the last six months of 1929 it had declined to $33,000,000-a difference of $85,000,000 odd as between those two periods.
Turn to another column and you will find that the trade for the last six months of 1932 was $1,763,000, and it had increased during the corresponding period in 1933 to $6,103,000, in other words, an increase of almost 400 per cent. The interesting part of the chart as given on this page is to be found in the items that were entering free into the United States from Canada in 1920, and I would invite the house to compare those figures with the tariff which was in force in 1929. There is a very material increase in respect of many of the articles that appear in the free list of 1920; compared with that year we find a substantial increase in 1929.
Let us now take the exports of wheat. During the period in which the opposition held office there was an abnormal increase in production, and exports did not keep pace with that increase. We find that in 1922 our exports
of wheat from Canada amounted to 185,000,000 bushels and in 1930 the total was 186,000,000 bushels. There was a gradual increase however in the carryover, for we find that in 1923 there was a carryover of approximately
40,000,000 bushels, whereas in 1927 it had reached the figure of 58,000,000 bushels. In 1930 it had reached 140,000,000 bushels and last year the carryover was 219,000,000. A similar story can be found in connection with bacon exports. In 1920 our bacon exports amounted to 200,000.000 pounds and in 1921 they had decreased to 98.000,000 pounds. In 1930 they had gone down to 26,000,000, pounds and in 1931 we ended the fiscal year with 12,000,000 pounds. We find however that under the trade agreements carried out by this government with the United Kingdom our bacon exports have increased until last year they totalled 43,000,000 pounds, a very substantial increase.
It is interesting to review the imports of bacon during the same period. In 1920 we imported into this dominion 4,900,000 pounds of bacon and hams; in 1929, 3,000,000 pounds; in 1930, 7,720,000 pounds; and in 1931, 6,330,000. In 1933 the figure had been reduced to
15.000	pounds. That is the result of the agreement with the United Kingdom.
We find a similar story in connection with cattle. In 1921 we exported approximately
300.000	head of cattle, and there was a gradual decrease until in 1931 the figure was 38,000. We know that when this government took office our cattle export trade had practically dwindled to nothing and there were no facilities for shipping cattle overseas; there was not. a single vessel equipped for the purpose. I am pleased to say however that under this agreement our cattle exports last year increased very materially until we had reached the figure of 53,000 for the year.
The figures I have quoted with respect to trade indicate the record which the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) established for himself when he was Minister of Agriculture. It is not a very good record, and it is no wonder that he himself, speaking in the city of Regina on October 19, 1931, made the following remarks with reference to agriculture. I quote what appeared in the Regina Leader of that date:
The Hon. Mr. Motherwell, speaking in Regina, made this statement, that a fresh foundation had to be laid for agriculture in Canada, both east and west, if the country and towns are to be saved.
In no better words could the failure of the Liberal government adequately to care for agriculture be described than in those words of the hon. gentleman.
374	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Perley (Qu'Appelle)
There has been some talk of tariffs restricting trade. I am getting tired of hearing that statement, and I believe the people of Canada are becoming tired of it too, for there is no evidence of it; in fact, under this government we have now increased our trade. To my mind, such talk is only an evidence of Liberal inconsistency and hypocrisy. It is the Liberal party running true to form, for ever since confederation there has always been the cry about lowering tariffs. In this regard I can do no better than refer to the speech of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luch-kovich) the other evening, and also the speech of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis); I think they dealt very fully with the argument about tariffs restricting trade and I will not discuss the question further.
What do we find to-day under this Conservative government, in relation to the tariffs which we have put into force Let us consider the gross imports Into Canada free of duty. I have here a table prepared by the bureau of statistics giving the figures for the gross trade into Canada from the years 1926 to 1933 from all countries, from empire countries, from foreign countries and from the United Kingdom and the United States. In 1926, from all countries, the gross imports into Canada free of duty amounted to 37-1 per cent; in 1927 the figure was 36 per cent; in 1928, 36 per cent; in 1929, 35 per cent; and in 1930, a-t the end of the fiscal year, 34 per cent. There was a decrease in the percentage of goods entering free under the late government. In 1931 we find that the percentage was 36-7; in 1932, it was 32-8 per cent; and in 1933, 36-9, back to almost the highest percentage in the last four year's of Liberal rule. The figures are similar with respect to foreign countries. I shall give the percentage of the gross imports from the United Kingdom entering free of duty:
Year-
Per cent
1927
1929
1931
1933
18.7
17.7 19
20.4
21.4
27.4 25.1 35.6
It will be seen that there is, as regards the United Kingdom, a gradual increase under our present tariff of goods entering free of duty until the amount is now almost double what it was in 1926. The same story may be told with respect to imports from the United States. The policy of the Liberal party of a gradual reduction m the tariff was carried out in such a way that by the time they [Mr. E. E. Perley. 1
left office the tariff was slightly higher than when they came into power.
The other night the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson) in his speech described what tariffs were doing for his constituency; he informed us that many industries had been re-established there, some of them working full time and others on two shifts. This is an evidence of what tariff is doing for industry. I believe the farmers of the west are agreed that the tariff has protected the primary producers and has assured for them the domestic market, that market which absorbs from 90 to 95 per cent of the total goods produced in Canada. There is no market as good as the domestic one.
This government has been carrying on under the most trying and difficult circumstances and I think it is agreed by all that since the very first day they took office they have been addressing themselves to problems which were not of their making. The government has endeavoured to maintain a sound, safe and solvent position and, in doing so, to stabilize markets and also to make markets certain. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in his address the other day gave conclusive evidence that recovery is taking place in Canada, and in support of his statement I am going to give one or two instances. The fact that consumers are buying more extensively according to reports of the retail trade throughout the country, even in western Canada, is an evidence of this recovery. There is an increase in capital expenditure. The statistics show that 200,000 more of our unemployed have been absorbed in our industrial life in the last eight months. Another excellent sign is that there is a steady increase in our favourable trade balance. When the present government took office there was an adverse trade balance of about $120,000,000, and this year it looks as though we might have a favourable trade balance of $150,000,000. There is an increase in our trade with the United Kingdom and also with the United States and there is a very substantial increase in our trade with other foreign countries. As the figures in this connection were given the other day by the Prime Minister, I shall not enter into details. We have now become the fifth exporting nation of the world; we have a sound financial position and we have the confidence and goodwill of other nations with which we are trading, and that is the greatest asset we can have.
We are now on the road to recovery and when within a very few years we reach a normal state, I believe Canada will then enjoy more material development than she has ever done before. All these instances of recovery

The Address-Mr. Perley (Qu'Appelle)
can, I think, be credited to the United Kingdom agreements made in 1932 and our producers are now, after a year's trial, beginning to realize what those agreements really mean to Canada; they propose to take advantage of such opportunities. In the constituency which I have the honour to represent, I know the people mean to give the United Kingdom agreements a fair trial and to do their part in endeavouring to develop the trade that is necessary. My constituency is favourably situated in this respect. The people of my constituency have from the very first adopted a system of diversified farming; they have developed splendid herds, stock of all kinds, and are in a position to go ahead and take advantage of those agreements. For instance, the town of Wapella, with some 900 of a population and surrounded by a diversified farming district, shipped this year two carloads of dressed poultry, the greater part of which went to the United Kingdom. That is a splendid record and it shows how the farmers there feel with respect to the agreements.
There are many important questions into which time will not permit me to go. For example, there is the monetary problem, the establishment of a central bank and the revision of the Bank Act. Among vital questions which affect western Canada materially are those of debt adjustment and interest and taxes, but I do not propose to take the time now to go into them. On a future occasion we shall have an opportunity to do so. I wish, however, to commend the government on the fact that before they made provision for the establishment of a central bank, they set up a commission before which the people of Canada could go and submit evidence. That was the proper way in which to deal with the matter. As regards debt adjustment, it may be necessary for the provinces to take the question up first but whatever adjustment is made it will have to be with the support and cooperation of the federal government.
The question of the wheat agreement is vital to western Canada at the present time and I feel that this matter should be thoroughly discussed. The other day the Prime Minister outlined the whole situation with respect to the circumstances leading up to the wheat agreement, and it would be presumption on my part to go into it in fuller detail than he did. I am, however, concerned with the carrying out of this agreement. The first thing we must consider is the confidence and good-will that must be maintained with respect to the agreement. When we have become a party to it with
some twenty other importing and exporting countries, it is up to the Canadian people to see that we carry it out and that good-will is maintained. From the statistics prepared and presented before the conference there was one of two alternatives to accept or nursue: first, they could continue the cutthroat system of marketing where supply and demand regulated and prices might go to a level which would be chaotic and cause disaster.
Then there was the other plan, as outlined by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) the other evening, that the importing and exporting countries get together and make an agreement. This they did. The exporting countries undertook that there should be a 15 per cent reduction in acreage or production. Our country was allotted a quota, and I think all agree that Canada, thanks to the efforts of the Prime Minister and the representative from western Canada at that conference, shared very favourably in receiving an allotment of 200,000,000 bushels, one per cent more than had been Canada's contribution to the total exports for the years between 1920 and 1930. I want to inform this house that the pool in western Canada is 100 per cent behind this agreement. I have heard their directors speak from time to time, I have made it my business to attend their meetings and see what their reaction was to this agreement, and I say they are 100 per cent behind it. I think it is safe to say that 90 per cent of the farmers in western Canada are behind it, with all due respect to what we have heard from the hon. members for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) and Weyburn (Mr. Young) and other opposition members. They do not voice the sentiments of the people of the west, for I know that the farmers are prepared to cooperate in this agreement, to give it a chance to function, knowing as they do what the overproduction of wheat means and the effect of the surplus on prices. As the hon. member for Peace River said the other might, this is the only desirable alternative, as by any other system we might find ourselves in a position where we have no quota at all.
But the farmers are very much concerned as to how they are to proceed to bring about the 15 per cent reduction. I am farming on a considerable scale myself and I am concerned about it. There are three or four ways in which we might go about it. We might have compulsory reduction by legislation. We might have voluntary reduction, by educating the farmers on the subject. We might have
376	COMMONS
The. Address-Mr. Parley (Qu'Appelle)
a bonus system, bonusing the farmer who summer fallows 15 per cent more than normal. A. fourth plan would be an individual quota system under permit. That is the plan I wish to put forward and speak of more particularly this afternoon. But before dealing with it in detail, let me say that there are certain conditions that lead us to believe that there may be in western Canada this year a very material reduction of seeded acreage. Among these conditions are the abandonment of farms in areas where production has not been good the last few years. There is insufficient seed in many quarters; there is also a tendency to replace tractoms by horses, and still more there is the menace this year of the grasshopper infestation causing a very material reduction, which I do not think we can avoid. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going into details about the first three methods, but I do want to go at some length into the quota plan. Of course we agree that any plan adopted will have to have the cooperation and support of the provincial governments. Possibly they will have to inaugurate it, but they should have the support of this house. So I want to get the concrete proposition before this house. I am sorry that in this discussion there seems to be more adverse criticisms than concrete suggestions from the opposition as to bow we might with goodwill develop some plan to carry out this scheme.
Speaking of the quota plan in more detail, I wish, Mr. Speaker, you would permit me to read more or less, as I want to be very careful to make it plain. The plan is:
(a)	To determine the requirements by adding to the quota of 200,000,000 bushels the domestic requirements;
(b)	To determine the acreage seed to produce wheat in 1934;
(c)	Dividing (a) by (b) to arrive at the average number of bushels per acre to produce (a). This will be the basis of computation for
(d)	Issuing of individual negotiable permits to market wheat to' each farmer who produces a sworn statement of his acreage seeded to wheat for the number of bushels arrived at by multiplying (c) by the verified acreage.
Circumstances over which the farmers of very large sections of the west, particularly in the southern area, have had little or no control, will make it a very difficult matter to persuade them to take a sane view of any proposal to reduce the acreage to be seeded to wheat in the season 1934. Naturally the most strenuous objections are from

those in the drought area. In fact I think there is no district in western Canada where a compulsory proposition would be well received. In submitting the plan I offer I would like to call attention to the fact that it is exactly the reverse of the bonus per acre or ner bushel' plan of two years ago, which gave to those who were fortunate enough to have a crop but gave nothing to those having none. Another feature is that no grain board will be necessary to handle this plan, it will work through the natural trade channels. The farmer fixes his own allotment by giving a sworn statement of acreage, no manipulation would be possible except by perjury. An allotment on a land basis, so much a quarter section, would not be satisfactory.
Taking into consideration the probable reduction from natural causes this year it may be that there will not be more than
21,000,000 acres seeded to wheat in the three prairie provinces; so that, taking the quota and the domestic requirements, permits might be issued to the farmers to market, say, 15 bushels per acre. I want to make it plain that the permit to market should be negotiable. Then in case a farmer's total crop were more than his allotment, he could purchase a permit to market the surplus from a man in a district where there was a partial or total crop failure. That would be. a strong feature of this plan. These permits being negotiable, a farmer who was fortunate enough to have a good crop and had a few thousand bushels more to sell than he had a permit for could purchase a permit from a farmer in an area where they had no crop at all. That would bring him in many cases more than the farmers are receiving under the relief plan at the present time. A board or facilities could be set up to regulate the price, and a minimum price might be fixed for the permits so that there would be no speculation or undue trafficking in them.
This is only a suggested plan. I wished to bring something concrete before the house, and I think it is important that we should give suggestions to the government. I believe this plan will be favourably received in western Canada. I have talked with many farmers who are likely to have a much larger crop or yield than perhaps they would be permitted to sell. However, when anyone who is so fortunate as to be in that position I think he will be very pleased to have the privilege of purchasing a permit to sell the surplus wheat. I claim that at least we should have the assistance and cooperation of every hon. member in the House of Commons, and that we should not have to listen to criticism such

The Address-Mr. Fontaine
as has been made of this agreement. This is an important matter, one which is vital to the people of Canada and more particularly to western Canada.
We have heard criticism by the hon. member for Melville. Only a few days ago he stood in this House of Commons and criticized the government with respect to its operations concerning the stabilization of wheat. More particularly his remarks were directed against Mr. McFarland. Having had experience as a cabinet minister in a former government he must have known that he was asking for information which this government could not give. I believe that on many occasions he has been to the pools endeavouring to get information. In some cases when he has got it he has used it in a political way. That is not the manner in which we believe hon. members should work. The government took its action in connection with wheat stabilization only after they had obtained the best possible advice from every interest in western Canada, including boards of trade, municipal organizations, the wheat pool and the grain exchange.
I have talked with many members of the grain exchange and with the business men of western Canada, I know they are one hundred per cent behind the operations of Mr. McFarland and that the}' are one hundred per cent behind the government's action with respect to wheat, because they know that what was done was the only possible procedure.
In attempting to arrive at an agreement there has been an effort on the part of the twenty-one exporting and importing nations to reach a solution which might result in removing the menace of the world's surplus. Further, this agreement, if it succeeds, would help to increase prices, and we know that if the price of wheat is increased, the prices of other commodities will increase also. If there is success the prices of all commodities will be improved. But if there is failure, what then? Well, we will be in no worse position than we were before the agreement was made. That is certain. I say it is up to all hon. members to get behind this agreement and give it proper support. I claim that the present government has done more for agriculture than has any other government since confederation. Had I time I could outline what has been done. What has the Liberal party offered? There is nothing at all constructive in their policy. In the last three sessions of this parliament they have not offered one practical suggestion for the recovery of agriculture. All their speeches in western Canada have been of a breaking-down and destructive nature.
May I for a moment or two compare the policy, with respect to agriculture, this government is pursuing with that followed by the Americans to the south of us. Since March last under the N.R.A. they have destroyed 6,000,000 hogs, and they are bonus-ing sows for market. In Canada, under the guidance and initiative of our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) who has devoted himself to the advancement of agriculture, great efforts have been made to induce our farmers to produce the right class of hogs, cattle and all other agricultural products. That is the difference between the two policies. Yesterday the price of live pork in Toronto was ten cents, while the price in Chicago was only three cents. For these reasons I claim that the government is doing everything within its power to help the farmer.
What is the function of a government? I believe I am stating it correctly when I say that it is the duty of the government to guide and encourage the industrial progress and social advancement of our people. It has to preserve industry and agriculture and to direct and control trade and commerce and finance. It has to preserve our national credit. These are the functions of government. In doing these things it has to maintain law, peace and order and has to preserve individual rights and opportunities in the development of our natural resources and our industries, so that there may be a fair and reasonable price to the producer and a fair and reasonable price to the consumer. That is the function of government, and I believe this government is doing that to the letter of the law.
In conclusion I wish again to state that my plan is but a suggestion. I know it will be criticized from many quarters. Certainly, I expect criticism from the opposition, because they criticize every constructive proposition coming from this side of the house. May I again express my confidence in the government, realizing that they are doing everything possible to bring Canada back to a normal state of prosperity and believing that they will be successful.


Mr. T. A. FONTAINE (St. Hyacinthe-Rou-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few observations concerning the speech from the throne, but before doing so may I join hon. members who have preceded me in congratulating the mover and seconder of the address in reply. Listening to those speeches I was impressed by the diversity of problems which we in Canada have to face. In order to make better and greater the country in which we live I believe we must cultivate and maintain the spirit of cooperation so neces-
37S
The Address-Mr. Fontaine

sary to every section of our country. I do not intend to cover in detail all that has been said, because the situation has been well dealt with by my right hon. leader. However there are some phases to which I should like to direct a few remarks.
Now, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, as I am more familiar with the French language I shall continue my remarks in my mother tongue.
Mr. Speaker, according to parliamentary practice, the address which thanks His Excellency the Governor General, on the occasion of his speech disclosing the sessional program, to which the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is no stranger, is generally moved and seconded by newly elected members supporting the government. We note, however, that this year this practice has not been followed because such a task was fulfilled by members who have been sitting in the house for a number of years, they have, however, well acquitted themselves of their task and certainly deserve our sincere congratulations. There are, however, newly elected members in this house, because during the intersession three by-elections were held. Unfortunately for the government they sit on the opposite benches.
These three by-elections held in the course of last year, in three provinces, representing three different sections of the country, have afforded to all impartial and unbiased observers an opportunity of judging of the unpopularity of this government. Notwithstanding all the efforts and appeals of the government, notwithstanding all the means and resources at its disposal, its three candidates were defeated, two of them losing their deposit, three Liberals being elected. Such was the outcome of the people's wishes, in the three provinces, just on the eve of a Dominion election. One fully realizes that under these circumstances, it is with fear and apprehension that the government sees the approaching expiration of its mandate. That is why it seeks every possible means to delay the day of atonement.
Faced with such a result one easily realizes that the contentions of the right hon. Prime Minister fall flat, when he tells us of the supposed confidence still reposed in his government. However, we are aware that he is the first to realize this fact, since, in his speech the other day, this confession slipped from his lips:
Even if the people are not contented, the government will have had the consolation of knowing that it has performed its duty.
And even if there exists, in fact, a serious improvement in business, and if things are pro-

gressing as well as we are assured, notwithstanding the blunders of this government, why do we hear in certain quarters of inflation measures? If the government thinks or finds itself obliged to have recourse to such measures, it is simply because they are aware that the country's affairs are actually in a sadder state than they were. As it was stated, it is the beginning of the end. All realize that the wind is shifting in every province, to the sorrow of our hon. friends opposite and that at the next Dominion election we shall witness the same result as we obtained in the last three by-elections.
All realize that no improvement is taking place, take, for instance, the very important problem of the sale and shipping of our wheat. The monthly bulletin of the "Banque Cana-dienne Nationale" for January last, points out that, notwithstanding certain hopes, the state of the -world wheat market gives rise to much anxiety. Our wheat exports, since the outset of the present season, namely from August 1, to December 15, have only amounted to 73,000,000 bushels, compared with $112,000,000 bushels in 1932. I have before me this bulletin. It reads as follows:
Since the wheat congress, which defined the export quota of this commodity, estimated at 560.000.00 bushels this being the world's requirements for 1933-34, the production in exporting countries, such as the Danubian states arid Argentina and occasionally in importing countries such, as France and Italy, was found greater than what was first anticipated. Under such circumstances, the possibility of increasing our wheat exports are very uncertain.
Sometimes, one hears of business improving. What, however, are the signs which can lead us to conclude with certainty that this so-called improvement is not factitious or momentary. The real proofs are entirely lacking. Let us take, for instance, the building trade. The old saying is: "When building is brisk, all is well". The Bureau of Statistics informs us that at the end of 1933, in large cities, like Montreal, construction has never been so dull and stagnant, for the last 15 years. The monthly reports of 1933, for the city of Montreal, compiled up to December 19, last, indicate that the value of building and repair permits amount to only $5,180,591, while they amounted to $10,428,613 the previous year, for the same period, that is for the year just ended the decrease amounts to more than half. We must not, however, imagine that this recurrence of normal conditions is this year proclaimed by the government for the first time. The year 1934 may perhaps witness the end of the crisis in the same way that each of the years 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933 have witnessed it, and even as the year 1935, perhaps, is bound to see it.

The Address-Mr. Fontaine
It is interesting to glance back and compare these hopeful forecasts, reassuring prophecies, made this year with those made to us these last years. The hon. Minister of Labour already foresaw the return to normal state, in the autumn of 1932. On the occasion of the anniversary of Labour day, in 1932, he addressed a message to the workers in Canada, of which the following is one of the striking excerpts as reported in the Labour Gazette-an elaborate review1 published by the Department of Labour, at Ottawa, Sept., 1932 edition, vol. 32, No. 9, page 946, French version:	*
It is hoped that we have reached the depth of this depression. There are many indications we are beginning to emerge from it. Not the least among these indications is the spirit of optimism which the recent Imperial conference has stimulated in our country.
Further on the hon. minister refers again to an "early recurrence of prosperity." And he ends his message thus:
I express the hope that long before another Labour Day rolls around, a period of prosperity greater than Canada has ever yet known may have been ushered in.


Mr. CASGRAIN (Translation):: Another broken pledge!


Joseph-Théophile-Adélard Fontaine: questions, remained helpless before the crisis, etc. In fact, it recalled very much the Tower of Babel.
At times, however, it was rumoured that, thanks to our Prime Minister, the conference had been saved, but that there wrnuld be no further discussion on the subjects which had prompted the conference. It was indeed a strange rescue 1 As all are aware three important questions were to be threshed out: war debts, tariffs and currencies. First, the discussion of these important questions were set aside. Hence, it became quite evident that, a complete stale-mate would result and that is what happened.
This conference, known in certain quarters as the "London omnibus" in which 68 nations had reserved seats for an unknown destination, had opened without the necessary preparation. It ended with entirely divergent opinions, hesitations, sudden changes of views, discontent and even with threats. This is now known to all. The conference did nothing to stabilize international currency and that was certainly the most important problem which it should have taken up. I cannot, therefore, see how our Prime Minister can credit himself with any glory, boast of the so-called advantages and endeavour to make us believe that our country benefited somewhat.
It is unfortunate that this government has practically done nothing worth while to help the farmers of my province. Yet, they suffered for a number of years and are still suffering like all others the consequences of the crisis, when their products sell at ridiculous prices, not even sufficient to meet theiT liabilities. The government within the last years, thought fit to help the western farmers, by granting them a bonus on wheat and setting aside for such a purpose large sums. The eastern farmer, who is also called upon to bear, to a large extent, the imposts and taxes, requested that some help be also extended to him in connection with his products, his dairy products, for instance, and more especially butter. He obtained nothing. Certain privileges were also granted to the western farmer with reference to the distribution of seed grains, yet the eastern farmer, because of the difficult times we are undergoing, would have been very thankful to enjoy similar privileges. I regret that nothing was done, for it is more than time that the government should make a decision as regards helping the eastern farmers, just as it did, in the past, for the western farmers. Faced with these requests the government replied that it regretted to be unable to intervene unless conditions in Quebec, became such that the provincial goviMr. Fontaine.]
ernment found itself unable to cope with the situation.	Again	do I	state that	I	do notthink that	this is	a fair	distribution	of	federal
grants. I therefore request that such a policy be changed.
Furthermore, I regret, that as a whole, the government gives no greater consideration to the interests, requests and just claims of the farming classes. It should not so easily forget the pledges and representations made to these classes in	order	to hoist itself to	power in1930. In	these	days	of distress,	it	should
neither forget that, in fact as well as in principle, agriculture is and remains the most efficacious remedy for unemployment, and that it was rightly said that it is the only industry which feeds and houses its man.
There are also other reasons, in a more general way, which should induce the government to give more consideration and help to the farming class. And I think it is befitting to recall, at present, that it is more important than ever to take the necessary measures to re-establish the disrupted equilibrium between city and rural life. Such fears existed on the eve of confederation, when the rural population represented 80 per cent of the entire population of this country. Strange to say, now that the ratio is down to about 40 per cent no worry seems to exist as regards this abnormal state prevailing in a country like ours. The speech from the throne mentions certain measures which might be enacted in connection with the setting up of farm credit, both as to short and medium terms. Although, regretting that the government had awaited the fifth session of this parliament to give consideration to a measure of such importance, I trust that it will adopt the means by which such a plan may materialize. I further hope that, in keeping with the solemn promises which it made, it will find the markets which the farmers absolutely require for the sale of their products, at fair and profitable prices.
Our opponents still reproach us for not helping them, making suggestions, cooperating with them in solving the difficult problems which they have to face, teaching them how the previous administration, so much taunted by them in 1930, managed to reduce our liabilities, accumulate surpluses, decrease the imposts and taxes, and expand our trade. In their heart they remember the glorious years of the liberal administration and they are fully aware that the people, who equally remember all this, do not lose an opportunity of weighing the facts, and this explains the government's failure in the three by-elections,, last year.

The Address-Mr. Fontaine
First, we might remind them that, in 1930, they were more boastful, they undertook to settle everything, remedy the evil in a few months, relieve unemployment, raise the price of farm products and find work for all. They certainly had no need of the liberals to perform all those deeds. Their leader, the right hon. Prime Minister, could, then, see nothing beyond Canada. He strongly and boastfully asserted that, if unemployment was spreading it was due to the negligence and incompetency of the government, that in a country like ours, unemployment was impossible if the government holding office carried out its duty, that it was an easy matter to promote our trade and, to attain such an end, he proposed, if necessary, to blast the way to the markets of the world. By the way, he naturally did not forget to charitably qualify the members of the King government as "mercenaries," of men thinking of their selfish interests, and he compared the leader of the liberal party to Judas. However, the right hon. Prime Minister has a habit of expressing such kind words towards his opponents. Did he not state, a few days ago, in the house, in his speech that the leader of the opposition did not do honour to the high post he occupies.
What happened following this display, this fine zeal, these ill-considered pledges, unrealizable promises and ridiculous bragging.
Unemployment, which was to be remedied in a few months, rapidly spread in a most alarming way. The number of unemployed was then 117,000; two years later the number had increased to over 1,000,000. The government was therefore not fulfilling its duty. Our trade decreased most alarmingly. The history of our trade, within the last few years, can be told by the following figures:
Year-
1997	  $2,306,000,000
1931	  1,223,000.000
1939	  946,000,000
1933	  933,000,000
The government has therefore not done its duty.
Our revenues have not ceased to decrease.
The government has therefore not carried out its pledges.
The national debt has not ceased to grow. The government has not measured up to its task. Ever since this government is in office, we have only heard of deficits. The government has therefore not shown efficiency.
Now, the help, participation and cooperation of the liberal party are sought. What good can come of it, since no account is taken of the suggestions it makes and has never ceased to make? Has not the right hon.
leader of the opposition unceasingly pointed out to the house and to the public that high protection will produce no good, that a greater freedom in our product exchanges is necessary to the economic life of this country.
It is to be noted that in all this the liberal party is perfectly in agreement with the Congress of the International Chamber of Commerce, held in Vienna, at the beginning of last year and in the course of which a resolution was unanimously adopted which stated among other things, that:
The freedom of both national and international trade must be safeguarded.
Censuring, thereby, the folly of high tariff rates, so dear to this government.
The leader of the government will not apply any other policy than his exaggerated protection. The dire lessons of these last years unfortunately have had no effect on him.
As to the Liberal party its policy is well known, I think, and it will find no difficulty in having it endorsed by the people of this country at the next election. It believes and advocates that trade intercourse must be wider and freer; that trade is a series of barters, between free people, and it comprises imports and exports; that in order to promote exchanges, one must wipe out exaggerated tariffs and put an end to unjustified control of prices. Unfortunately, sir, it seems that., at present no economic policy guides the nations of the world, unless it be a system of excessive economic nationalism which, in the end will destroy itself, perhaps, by burying a civilization under its ruins. These are a few eimple and common sense truths that are taught, expounded and advocated by all economists, ever since the beginning of the crisis.
The people are aware that the Liberals in applying their policy brought on prosperity in the past, and they again realize that no good will be derived from putting in force an unsound policy of high protection and barriers to trade. That is why the people anxiously await the day of settling accounts, and that is why also, they wanted, last year, that the result of the by-elections in Yamaska-Restigouche-Madawaska and Mackenzie should be the "mane, thecel, phares'' of this government.
The right hon. Prime Minister has often shown that he likes quotations from the Scriptures. May I remind him that it is written somewhere in the Scriptures that the tree is known by the fruit it bears.
The people who are watching every act of their government are well aware that the putting in force of its policy will not bear sound fruit to our country.

The Address-Mr. Blair
It is the leader of the government himself who signed his death warrant when, in 1930, he made solemn pledges which he never kept. He was the one who laid down the principle that, in a country like ours, if destitution, hardships, distress and unemployment is felt, it is not the fault of individuals but of the government which does not live up to its obligations.
The people heard his appeals, promises, pledges, and after they had placed their trust in them, they were bitterly deceived and they now await the opportunity, in the next dominion election, to give vent to their discontent, by emphasizing the fact to the Conservative party that, if it were able to deceive and fool them in 1930, the same thing will not repeat itself at the next election.


Mr. J. K. BLAIR (North Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of expressing my view's on economic questions in this debate. We feel that we are under a greater obligation than ever to proclaim the gospel of trade and commerce because w'e believe that the nations of the world have been engaged in a tariff war, and that this narrow policy of economic nationalism is principally responsible for the depression through which we are now passing.
We also believe that in many countries of the world the voice of the poorer classes is not heard, but rather the voice of the upper and wealthier classes. Socrates, an ancient Greek, thought that the voice of the people was the voice of the deity and that the voice of the people should be heard; that the people, by a process of trial and error, would rise to a higher level. Socrates was put to death and was followed by Plato. Plato thought that the voice of the people was the voice of ignorance and should not be heard. Later on Plato said, "Why trust the people who crucified their leader?" After Plato's time there arose another great philosopher, Aristotle, w'ho wras a pupil of both Socrates and Plato. He thought that the voice of the people should be heard in government and that it should be regarded in accordance with the intelligence of the people. He was the teacher of Alexander the Great, and when Aristotle taught Alexander the policy of Socrates and of Plato, the king asked him which of the two he should use. The reply was, "If the people are intelligent, both poor and rich, use the policy of Socrates in some of the Greek states; that policy could be applied geographically." But he went on to say that in Persia, where the people were ignorant and only a few of the upper classes were intelligent, the king should be guided entirely by the upper classes and the poorer people should be ignored.
LMr. Fontaine.]
The question to-day is, Mr. Speaker, which policy is this government following? Is it listening to the voice of the masses or to the voice of a few of the upper classes? I think we can test that by an illustration. When the Liberal government was in power, hon. gentlemen will remember that four thousand people marched upon Ottawa from Oshawa wishing to see the Hon. Mr. Robb and the then Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). While they were deliberating in the theatre how they would see them, Mr. Robb and Mr. Mackenzie King walked into the theatre and asked them what they wanted. The Liberal government believed that the voice of the people should be heard, that the people should tell them their needs, and when the representatives of those four thousand people presented their case to the government they said. "We want better pay and more work, and you can secure that for us by raising the tariff. But Hon. Mr. Robb replied, "We will see that you get better pay and more work, but we will not do it by raising the tariff." On the contrary, Mr. Robb and the Liberal government lowered the tariff, for that was their policy, and the result was that these people got better pay and more work.
That illustrates in a simple way that the Liberal party believes that the poorer classes should have the opportunity of making their needs known to the government, but they ought not to try to prescribe for themselves. They should go, as a patient does to the doctor, and tell their complaints, but they should not attempt to prescribe for themselves, for if they should try to do so they might poison themselves. In this instance their needs and wants were taken care of but not in the manner in which they had prescribed for themselves.
What do we find in contrast to that? Last year approximately 4.000 people, mostly farmers of Ontario and Quebec, came to Ottawa with a petition for the government. What was the result? Their voices were not heard. I, along with the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton), went to see the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) on behalf of these people. The hon. member for South Huron presented his request in these words: Honourable sir, I know that you are busy and may not be able to come down yourself to see these farmers, but will you delegate someone, perhaps the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), to act as your representative and speak on your behalf? The Prime Minister refused to do this. He said he had come to a decision and would not delegate anyone else to act on his behalf. He said:

The Address-Mr. Blair
I am busy, I have an appointment with Lord Rotiiermere. I think the Prime Minister's action showed an entire lack of responsibility to the people. He was not in the employ of Lord Rothermere; these four thousand farmers were the ones who were helping to pay his salary. They had travelled many miles to see him and his refusal to see them was a declaration that the voices of the masses are not to be heard in the councils of this government.
Our party stands for the principle of equal rights to all and privileges to none. We stand for the retention of the power of taxation in the hands of parliament. We believe that people should pay taxes according to their ability to pay. We do not believe in a horizontal tax such as we had in the case of sugar where the child at a mother's knee pays the same as the millionaire. We believe that the burden of taxation should be according to the ability of the people to pay, but the sugar tax is not of that nature. Such a tax is a crime. We believe in gradually reducing tariff restrictions upon all necessities consistent with the revenue requirements of the country. We believe in the promotion of a favourable reciprocal trade not only with members of the British commonwealth of nations but with all nations of the world.
We believe that that would be a leading factor towards a permanent and successful agriculture, industry, shipping and international trade. We believe it would place Canada upon the highway which would lead to an outstanding position among the nations of the world.
The Prime Minister gave us somewhat of a promise that reciprocity would receive consideration but we have no reason to expect this. I would not expect a man to put through a policy in which he himself did not believe, and the policy of reciprocity Iras been denounced by the Conservative party. We believe that the nations of the world have swung towards higher- tariffs which work to the advantage of the wealthy at the cost of the poor. They are making the rich richer and the poor poorer. The papers announce that thirty-seven new millioanaires have been created in this country during the last three years. This statement cannot be proved as statistics are not available but we have access to the statistics of the United States. That country recently had a government whose policy resembled that of our own and I should like to quote certain figures to show the increase in incomes which occurred from 1927 to 1928. They are as follows:
Class of income
if 100,000 and under if 150,000
150.000	and under 300,000
300.000	and under 500,000
500.000	and under 750,000
750.000	and under 1.000,000
1.000.	000 and under 1,500,000
1.500,000	and under 2,000.000
2.000.	000 and under 3.000,000
3.000.	000 and under 4.000,000
4.000.	000 and under 5,000,000
5.000.	000 and over
Number of individuals
1927	1928
5.261	7,049
3,873	5,678
1.141	1,756
384	685
173	298
138	284
56	108
55	91
22	40
8	18
11	26
Increase
Number	Per cent
1,788	33
1.805	46
615	53
301	78
125	72
126	* 90
52	92
36	65
18	80
10	124
15	136
How can any nation exist with such wealth in the hands of the few? Yet the governments seem to be assisting in this process. I believe that the report in our press was correct and that if available our statistics would show a similar condition. These Americans of great wealth are the ones who are advertising what a great depression there is in that country. They claim that this period of great distress is an act of Providence and unavoidable. I believe that depressions are man-made and I do not see why we should have one at this time. My belief is that this class is responsible largely for our present depression. According to the figures I have quoted, it would not appear as though there
is a .depression. It simply means that these people are extorting money from the poorer classes and doing it internationally and in a scientific way, because I think that they work in cooperation with other nations.
This government has granted to the millionaire in Canada many special privileges but perhaps the most cruel has been the sugar tax, which was really a donation to the wholesaler, paid by the poverty stricken consumers. We are told that Canada is rapidly advancing towards greater prosperity, but how can we say that with such assurance when we learn that nearly 190 municipalities in the province of Ontario, for example, are not paying their share of relief, 19 of them declaring

The Address-Mr. Blair
themselves bankrupt and refusing to pay anything,-such places as Windsor and the Yorks and places around Toronto. It would be different in the case of municipalities up in New Ontario where new settlers are trying to get a footing, but I am referring to places near Toronto where there are people living in fine homes. I do not see why the farmers in the county of Wellington should be paying their taxes, when there are people elsewhere living in lovely homes, riding around in large cars and so on. There is something wrong. The strange thing about Toronto and the Yorks is this. Listening over the radio to the messages coming from the Conservative clubs we have been told that there should be a curtailment of everything, that the reason we have a depression is that there is a superabundance of everything. The people in these clubs were praying for scarcity, and at the time of Thanksgiving, while they were praying for scarcity, those churches in Toronto of the same political calibre as that party were praying for abundance to make glad the heart of man. Here were politicians praying for one thing and churches of the same persuasion praying for something else, so that the Almighty himself could not tell what they wanted. What a strange notion, that famine is due to abundance. Suppose we were going along the road and a squirrel came running out of the bush, with tears in his eyes, telling us that there was going to be a famine this winter. One would ask why; and suppose the squirrel said that there would be a famine because there were too many beechnuts. Naturally one would think that there was something wrong with the poor squirrel's head. Yet that is the sort of thing we hear from the government. Hon. gentlemen opposite are great advocates. I believe that our Prime Minister is one of the best solicitors and advocates I have ever heard. He will take an idea that is positively absurd and pro\e it to the satisfaction of the general public prove it to the hilt. And they' will believe him in many instances. He is a great advocate, and if only he had a leg to stand on he could travel through anything. He will try to prove that there is a famine in the land because there is a superabundance of everything. What more absurd idea could be conceived? One would laugh at the poor little squirrel for suggesting that there would be a famine because there were too many beechnuts; one would laugh at the mentality even of a squirrel for suggesting such a thing; yet we give our Prime Minister license to put forward and defend such notions.
All through my territory during the last election the railway men were told that if

the tariff were raised two or three times higher than it was at one end of the road and raised to the same height at the other end, and if a sales tax of 6 per cent were imposed all round, there would be a great improvement in railway traffic. That was an obviously silly idea, of course. While some may not speak too highly of the minds of railway men, I must speak in high terms of the arguments of the Prime Minister; for he put that idea across, so that we could not get it out of the minds of the railway men. He proved to them that if he raised the tariff two or three times as high as it was, and if he put on a high sales tax, the railways would be more flourishing than ever. I do not know how he did it; no doubt it was his capacity for argument and for bringing his ideas to prevail among the poorer classes. But the notion was absolutely absurd to anyone who thought for himself. He carried that argument with the people, although we believed then as we believe now, that the situation is only aggravated by these high tariffs.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce is carrying out the old policy of Joseph Chamberlain, of splendid isolation. Chamberlain argued that the British people were the chosen race of the earth and should isolate themselves from the common herd, and trade among themselves. That is all very well, but we as a party believe that we should trade anywhere and everywhere. We firmly believe in the British preference, but we do not wish to cut off our trade relations with other countries. Our Minister of Trade and Commerce has a splendid appearance: he has the superficial veneer of a high class gentleman, and is, I am sure, a gentleman; but he lacks that discretion and judgment which you find in the Englishman all over the world and which make the Englishman such a splendid trader. When the late government was in power and was about to negotiate with any other country, the keynote of its negotiations was secrecy, and when the minister came out of a cabinet meeting and was approached by correspondents he had no messages to broadcast. The result was that the negotiations were kept secret and the object of the government was not frustrated. When the price of sugar was high and fish and potatoes were cheap in the maritimes, we negotiated a treaty with the West Indies with the result that sugar was reduced in price and we also received a better price for our fish and potatoes. What do we find now? When we go to the moving pictures we find that the Minister of Trade and Commerce

The Address-Mr. Blair
appears on the screen, and there is broadcast a speech prepared by himself or someone else, telling just what he is about to do, what policy he is about to put into force. It seems to me that if any government were about to put into force a particular policy in connection with trade with another nation it would strengthen its position by keeping quiet about the whole thing until the agreement has been executed. But our Minister of Trade and Commerce would seem to be the advance agent for other nations, so that the trade is all gone before this country can benefit. Can you imagine an automobile dealer in Ottawa broadcasting the fact that he is going to Peterborough in ten days' time to sell ten cars to some firm there? Why, his trade would be gone before he got there. But that is precisely the position in which the Minister of Trade and Commerce places himself. He advertises his modus operandi, his method of working and destroys his business before he gets it. And so we have much ado about nothing. We have trips and negotiations, but we find our trade going down steadily. Is that the way in which England wTon the trade of the world? And how much better in trade and commerce has been the work of our Prime Minister? We can well remember when Mr. Forbes was here and the government slammed the door in the face of New Zealand. We lost millions of dollars and did not raise the price of butter one cent.
Our treatment of Russia will be remembered; the Prime Minister was here day after day chasing the Russian bear. He spent his time chasing the Russian bear, and whenever be rose to speak and his followers were applauding him, I was reminded of Arcturus chasing the Great Bear round the polar star every day and returning to the same point in twenty-four hours. Therefore, whenever I listened to the Prime Minister chasing the Russian bear I said: That is Arcturus again chasing the Bear and the Greeks applauding. The Prime Minister would have been much better advised had he put through a trade treaty with Russia. In this way Canada could have obtained millions of dollars; we could have sent our machinery to Russia; we could have traded with her in many ways, but instead of that the Prime Minister seemed to think it was his duty to attend to the social and moral obligations and the domestic affairs of that country. He went beyond the pale of his jurisdiction. The glory of Britain and her sons is that they will trade with any country in the world; the British traders would trade with China where they have loose 74726-25
marriage laws, with Turkey where they have harems, with the cannibals of the South Sea. The British trader did not interfere with the domestic arrangements of other nations; he was out to trade with them. We would appreciate it much more if our Minister of Trade and Commerce, instead of placing himself on the screen in the movies as an advance agent for other nations, would pay more attention to Canada's trade and if our Prime Minister, instead of chasing the bear, because we never elected him as Prime Minister to be Arcturus, would be a real minister of trade and commerce. It will be remembered that the Prince of Wales said:
Failure to recognize trade as interchange and obstacles placed in the way of reciprocal trade are perhaps the main causes for the world's present troubles. The British peoples have the idea of commerce running strong in their blood.
The Prince of Wales believed lack of trade was a great cause of the depression.
As regards the Prime Minister not coming to see the farmers when they were in Ottawa, we wondered what detained him. He was too busy talking to Lord Rothermere. That is rather significant in view of the fact that he has had decorations bestowed and has reintroduced titles in Canada, which is something we do not need here. The idea of bestowing titles never flourishes in a democratic country; aristocracy and democracy are not compatible institutions. As democracy advances, aristocracy recedes and vice versa, so that if we want to maintain Canada as a democratic country, the fewer aristocratic methods we have the better for us. This bestowal of titles is simply an old relic of feudalism and is quite unnecessary in this democratic country. The Prime Minister and his colleagues made a tour of Canada and we thought they were investigating the unemployment situation and the question of trade and commerce. They came back, however, with a long list of ladies' names. When they were out there, they had on their dancing slippers and their long-tailed coats; they were not looking after our labouring people at all. We thought that they would produce a solution for unemployment, but after months of labour they brought forth a list of bouquets to be sent throughout this country. That is the last thing we need here. What we do need is attention to our unemployed, to our trade and commerce; bread and butter are what we want.
Methods of communication have been greatly improved of late; we have the telegraph, the telephone and the radio, but while I may be wrong, I do not believe any labouring man or farmer has any way of communicating with a millionnaire who has always

The Address-*Mr. Blair

been wealthy. There is too much mental static and the message cannot be got across. We have tried for three years to get it across, and have failed. It would have been useless for the Prime Minister to go down to listen to those farmers, because he would not have understood what they were saying. Were a prime minister who is also a millionaire to have been at one time for a week on the end of a crosscut saw or behind the carriers of a threshing machine, he would have something in the nature of a detector bulb in his brain and when a message was being sent to him, the wave length would harmonize, he could tune in and know what was being said. But 3'ou cannot send a message from a labouring man to a millionaire who has always been wealthy. Votes will register, but a message will not. There is too much interference, too much static, too many crossed wires.
The government, instead of handing out bouquets lavishly, should have made some provision for our farmers; it must give them a new deal. Take a farm which three years ago was worth 86,000 and had a 83,000 mortgage on it: to-day the farmer has no equity in it and the mortgage company really owns the farm. In addition, we have to consider. the low prices that are being obtained for farm products and the high rates of interest being charged, and we must not forget that this situation was brought about largely by the actions of the government. They took all the money out of our rural districts and our towns and villages for their national bonds, depleting the whole country. The result is that we cannot get m-ortgage loans upon our farms and those in the towns cannot obtain loans on their houses. I should like to see any person try at this time to secure a farm mortgage. It cannot be done in the rural districts of Ontario and I imagine the situation in the west is worse. The man who holds the mortgage is afraid to seize the farm, because at the present time farms are worth very little. If this government would like to help the farmers let them open the gates of trade so that the farmers' products could get out into the world's markets.
Then there are many little things in which they could help. Take the stockyards such as those in Toronto where S30 a ton is charged for hay when hay is selling for $6. The farmer has to take whatever price is offered for his stock but has to pay these unduly high prices for feed, such as 840 a ton for grain. In every way possible they extort money from the farmer and spoil his sales. Then we have these men stepping around trying to grade pigs on the hoof; it would be

a blessing to Canada to dismiss every one of these hog graders. Hogs should be graded on the rails, they cannot grade hogs on foot anyway. These fellows are simply working in the interests of the abattoirs.
Now I think we should state briefly the policy of our own party. I will mention just a few points before I close. There is the unemployment situation, that is the most important problem. We think that a representative national commission should be formed which would cooperate with the provinces and municipalities. The unemployment situation was the means of this government getting into power and this government has never dealt with it since, not in a reasonable way. They have been giving doles but that is not what the people want.
Then we want the liberation of external trade. The Liberal party believes that trade is the basis of industrial and commercial development, and that Canada needs trade. The Liberal party would promote trade with all nations.
We need the liberation of internal trade. The Liberal party will seek to end artificial price control and agreements in restraint of trade. Price fixing by agreements restricts and hampers trade. The internal trade of our country has become honeycombed with and enmeshed in secret understandings and agreements.
We want to develop the primary industries. The Liberal party by its policies will continue to further the development of agriculture, lumbering, mining and fisheries by effecting reductions in the costs of production of Canada's basic products and by obtaining wider markets.
We want to safeguard our national railways. We want the democratization of industry. The Liberal party believes that industrial reconstruction is the problem of the future. It will seek to give to workers and consumers, as opportunity offers, a larger share in the government of industry.
We stand for the restoration of responsible government and the reassertion of personal liberty, electoral reforms and a balanced budget. We think it is extremely important to have the budget balanced. As the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen said, we cannot borrow ourselves into prosperity.


Mr. EUSEBE ROBERGE (Megantic) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, after perusing
the speech from the throne and listening to the address moved by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil), I am unable to discover anything in them which might relieve

The Address-Mr. Roberge
immediately the present crisis and still less carry out the promises made by this government in the course of the 1930 election.
Since the last session I have visited many of my old constituents as well as a few from the new parishes which were added to the county of Megantic, at the last redistribution. What are the workmen, farmers and all classes of society saying? Bennett is not carrying out his pledges. Farm products, as a whole, have dropped 50 per cent since the Conservative government has taken office. The workers, especially the miners, hardly earn 50 per cent of the wages they had in 1930, and naturally are only employed half time. Moreover, the people of the counties of Wolfe, Beauce and Megantic are dissatisfied at seeing their counties cut up arbitrarily without any good reason and in the mere hope of retaining or winning these three counties within the Conservative fold at the next election. The Conservatives, far from having made their position secure through these changes, have simply created discontent and the people only await an opportunity to vote, as a whole, against them so as to avenge the insult made to them when their counties were cut up and furthermore, because the government did not carry out the promises made in 1930. The Conservatives misled the people in 1930, but they will not do so at the next election.
The bon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) who was able to feather his nest at the last redistribution, made a statement of this kind at a large meeting at St. Malachie:
The Liberals think that we are reluctant to discuss the sugar tax; however, I am not afraid to do so. It is an excellent measure, the government is in need of revenue and this tax will net them $20,000,000. All will be called to contribute, yet no one will be the poorer.
I think the hon. member would change his mind were he to take up the subject with the workmen.
The hon. member told the fanners that they would get a better price for their maple sugar. What happened? In 1933, the farmers had to sell this commodity cheaper than they ever did for forty years, ever since I have been in business. In my own parish, a car load of maple sugar was shipped and the following prices were paid to farmers:
Quality-
No.	1	
5	cents	per	lb.No.	2	
4	cents	per	lb.No.	3	
3	cents	per	lb.
The farmers therefore received on an average 4 cents per pound for their sugar, the 74726-25 J
lowest price ever paid in my county. This is all the benefit derived by the farmers from this tax and they had to pay dearer for their granulated sugar. The hon. member only spoke once on this subject. I think he must have been warned, because since then, he never referred to this sugar tax in the meetings he held, at least, judging from newspapers. . . .
If ever there were an unfair tax levied by the government it is certainly the one on granulated sugar.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) introduced and had adopted by this house a resolution to the effect that a committee be appointed to investigate the dealings of trusts and profiteers. The Prime Minister could have acted before, because there exists an act empowering him to investigate trusts and the dealings of people who rob the people by their exorbitant profits.
The evidence at the coal inquiry showed that coal dealers were not content with twice the profits that our county merchants make. If they were their profits would be quite acceptable and coal would retail at the most $10 per ton. The trusts, however, retail it to-day at $14, $15 and $16. Every coal consumer has, therefore, contributed to these trusts at least $50 more than they should. In these days of depression, I think, that our people would highly appreciate $50.
The same applies to gasoline. If we were not bled by these trusts, this commodity would retail 5 or 6 cents cheaper per gallon.
Another article which is also controlled, to a large extent, by trusts is leather soles. The farmers are paid for raw hides from 1 to 3 cents per pound, the manufacturing process cost, let us say, 10 to 12 cents per pound which is a reasonable profit, so that leather cost the trusts from 13 to 15 cents per pound. The latter first extended their control over the small manufacturers, to-day, they sell this leather from 45 to 55 cents per pound. It is simply robbery to make such large profits on an article of first necessity. These are the trusts that this government tolerates in our country, they are to a great extent responsible here and abroad for the present crisis through the robberies committed when they realized such large profits and over charged the people. Should a poor person steal so as to provide for his wife and children, he is arrested and sent to gaol, but directors of coal, gasoline and leather trusts, etc., are allowed to steal thousands and thousands of dollars, daily, and are not molested. They are the ones who should be arrested and sent to gaol instead of
The Address-Mr. Roberge

the poor people; moreover, the wealth acquired by fleecing the people should be confiscated by the state.
The government, sir, has introduced a resolution, just before the expiration of their mandate. Before the inquiries are completed-a very long time-the people will have swept them from power. This government has no intention of preventing trusts from fleecing the public or of having these highway robbers arrested. Two years ago, I exposed, in the house, a man who had fleeced the public for twelve years. I refer to Garfield McKinnon who had fleeced mail conductors. I supplied the government, then, with affidavits and all the necessary evidence to enable them to arrest this individual. 1 personally, made the request, in the house, to the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) and the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). Nothing was done because he is one os' their partisans, so it is said.
What the people require, sir, are not promises, conferences, inquiries and trips to Geneva or'Cairo, it is work and better prices for farm products. As the government is unable to carry out its promises, it should give the people an opportunity of expressing their views, it would then learn whether the people are satisfied with the administration of public affairs. The recent by-elections have shown that they are not. The other sections of Canada, therefore, should also be given an opportunity to express their views.


Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few observations on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I intend to follow my usual custom and be brief in anything I have to say. There are certain points which concern the people I represent and which I should like to place before the house and government, and I intend to take this opportunity to do so.
Before proceeding however may I congratulate the mover and seconder of the address upon the manner in which they acquitted themselves in the task they had to perform. I had a similar experience some few years ago, and I realize that either moving or seconding the address in reply is no small task. However when I had the honour of doing so I was seconding an address presented by a government which was doing something for the people, a government which had surpluses instead of deficits, a government which legislated for the masses of the people rather than for the privileged few, a government which was reducing the. costs of production in the primary industries and giving them every chance to make both ends meet and a government which was reducing the public

debt. Therefore, with the particularly hard task these gentlemen had to perform, I believe they acquitted themselves very well.
On Tuesday of this week the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis) appeared to be very anxious to find out my political status. He is reported as having said the following:
How could we get the point of view of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Heaubien)'! He sits with the Liberals, but we find that he calls himself a National-Progressive. Just what is a National-Progressive? I must confess it is difficult to understand even a rational Progressive. but a National-Progressive is quite beyond the bounds of human thought.
Well, if the hon. member for Souris is so anxious to find out what the word "national" means let him refer back to the National Liberal-Conservative party of 1921, and he will get the definition. May I also tell the hon. member that I am not concerned as to whether or not he knows my political status, but I am concerned with the rights of the electors I represent in this house. For the information of the hon. member for Souris may I state that in 1921 I was elected as a National-Progressive; again in 192.5 I was elected as a National-Progressive and in 1926 the Liberals and Progressives in my constituency decided to unite their forces, and after uniting chose me as their candidate. What happened? I was the only man in Canada elected by acclamation. What happened to the Conservative candidate? He got stuck in the mud which they had been slinging all through the campaign. Again in 1930, with the Liberal and Progressive forces in fusion, I was elected by the biggest majority that was ever given to any candidate in the riding. I had three opponents, and I am sure that the Minister of Finance, who is always looking for money, was very glad to get that S600 which I brought into the treasury for him. That is my political record. The electors know where I stand, and they have sent me here for the last twelve years. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that they are just as intelligent to-day as they have been through all those years.
Now a word as to political parties. When the Prime Minister made his opening campaign speech in Winnipeg on June 9, 1930, he promised everything under the sun. He was going to blast his way into the markets of the world, and find work for every man and woman who wanted it: in short, he promised everything under the sun. The people believed him to a large extent. He was a big man, and at that time they thought he might be a superman. But what have been the results? The biggest failure that has ever overtaken any government has taken place in this country in the last four years.

The Address-Mr. Beaubien
We have now in this house another political party, calling themselves the 'C.C.F. I shall not pronounce that like my hon. friend from Melville (Mr. Motherwell) did. As he pronounced it, using an "h," it sounded like C.C.heifers. I do not think that is right. What is this new party doing? They are promising everything under the sun to-day, so much so that after their convention in Regina I went to my spiritual adviser and said, "Scratch me off your roll." He asked, "Why?"
I showed him the C.C.F. platform. I said, "They are going to provide heaven on earth for me and everyone else so why should I seek it elsewhere?" They are promising to socialize the natural resources of this country and to leave unsocialized our greatest natural resource, which is the land. They are promising to uphold and follow the democratic system under which we live, and yet they know that if they are ever going to put their program into effect it cannot be done except under a system of dictatorship.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Rubbish.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: It is not rubbish, and
you know it because you are intelligent. But they will not fool the people. The man who is out on the land is attached to the soil. He might find himself in a financial position today which is almost unbearable; he might owe a great deal more than he ever will be able to pay, yet that very same man wants to control his own land; he wants to work out his own destiny to the best of his ability without any socialization of our natural resources or of the land. No, Mr. Speaker, the C.C.F. are not going to give me heaven on earth, and since I hat'e listened to their speeches in this house I am going back to my spiritual adviser to ask him to put me back on the roll.
I wish now to deal with a few paragraphs in the speech from the throne. Here is one paragraph the sentiment of which I appreciate:
Since I have been associated with you as the representative of His Majesty in Canada, I have visited every province of the dominion. I have been greatly impressed by the loyalty, devocion and friendliness of the people, as well as the high courage with which men and women were meeting and overcoming abnormal difficulties in their daily lives.
I want to thank His Excellency the Governor General for his.visit to parts of my riding this year. I had the honour and the privilege of accompanying him with a large delegation through certain parts of my riding, and I can assure the house that we were pleased and honoured to see him. Our people were anxious to meet the representative of the crown in
Canada, and I am sure that His Excellency, when he remembers the warmth of the welcome which he received in that part of Canada, will take the first opportunity to revisit other parts of the riding. I invite him most cordially to do so. I wish to assure him that the people will be very glad to see him and show him their loyalty and devotion.
In another part of the speech from the throne the government says:
You will be invited to consider legislation designed to facilitate the efficient and profitable marketing of live stock and agricultural products.
Any legislation along that line will receive my hearty support. There is no doubt that there is too great a spread between the price which the producer receives, especially in the production of live stock, and the price which the consumer pays when he buys the commodity on the market. Any legislation which will give to the actual producer of live stock and other farm products a greater return will be of benefit not only to agriculture but to the whole of Canada.
Another paragraph in the speech from the throne refers to the royal commission on banking and currency and the establishment of a central bank. A central bank might be a very good thing for Canada; I am not in a position to say. But I do know that the establishment of a central bank will not touch the ordinary individual; it will not touch the farmer.
Further on in the speech from the throne the government say that they are making a study of agricultural credits:
My government have been giving careful consideration to measures that might be adopted for the establishment of agricultural short term and intermediate credits; and have invited representatives of the provinces to study the means by which practical elfect may be given to the recommendations in this respect made by the Royal Commission on Monetary and Banking Problems.
Whiat does 'the report of the Macmillan cotmmisison say? At page 70 of the report I find this:
In a memorandum prepared by a committee representing the governments of the three (western) provinces, it is estimated that the annual gross revenue from agriculture in these provinces fell from $843,153,000 in 1928 to $273,738,000 in 1932, representing a loss of 674 per cent in farm income.
You can imagine, Mr. Speaker, the position of an industry which finds itself facing a reduction of 67^ per cent in its income, and yet that same industry is the most important
The Address-Mr. Beaubien

industry to the well-being of Canada. The commission further said:
In the memorandum tiled on behalf of the United Farmers of Ontario, an estimate made by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics of the values of field crops in Canada was given as follows: -
1928	 $1,125,003,000
1932	 416,580,000
There is a depreciation of two-thirds in the value of field crops. The commission continue :
The following is an extract from the evidence submitted on behalf of the United Farmers of Ontario as to the problem of short term credit in Ontario.
And this, Mr. Speaker, is applicable I think not only to Ontario but to all our centres of agriculture. I quote further:
Generally speaking, within the last two years the banks have ceased to function in regard to Canadian agriculture. Agriculture is taken to be an activity, or an industry that is not worthy of credit, and from the banking point of view 1 am not blaming them.
I do not desire t.o cast any reflection upon the banks, but the fact is that as far as agriculture is concerned they have ceased to function. I hope the genial Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes)-when I say "genial " I mean it-will take what I am about to say under very serious consideration. When a farmer wants to get a small loan of $30, S40 or $50 to carry on seeding or harvesting operations, he goes to the bank and asks for money. The banker tells him that he cannot make the loan because he has no jurisdiction, (hat it must be referred to the head office. He then says to the farmer: "Suppose you do borrow this money, how are you going to pay it back?" The farmer tells him that he hopes to repay it from the proceeds of his farm. The banker answers right back: "With the present prices being paid for commodities, you would not be able to repay this loan from the proceeds of your farm because your costs of production are higher than the prices you receive for your commodities." The farmer is absolutely tied. I have known of dozens of cases where 150 or 200 acres of land have been ready for the binder but the farmer could not buy the twine with which to tie his grain. He could not get the money from the bank and the man who was selling the twine would not give credit. What does the farmer do in a case like that? There is no stock prepared for market as it is too early in the season and the only thing he can sell is a milch cow or two. Over and over again I have seen a farmer taking a couple of milch cows to the market to be sold in order to get $30 or $40 with which to buy twine. He is forced to deprive his family of what is

absolutely needed; he has to sacrifice his milch cows on the market at Winnipeg in order to get the small sum he requires for the purchase of his twine. If the grain is not tied a hailstorm might come along or a sudden change take place in the weather and his crop would be destroyed in five minutes.
Both from the national standpoint and the necessity of the continuance of agriculture, there must be short term credits. I do not contend that the farmer should be able to borrow without having to repay, but legislation should be brought down to enable the farmer to get a short term loan. Surely there must be some way of seeing that the lender is protected and the borrower is enabled to obtain the money he needs. I urge the Minister of Finance not to continue to dilly-dally with the provinces in order to find out what is the best form of legislation. Let us have legislation at this session which will provide the short term credits which are essential if the farmer is going to be able to continue.
I come now to the wheat agreement entered into by the Prime Minister with certain other countries and which provides for a reduction of about fifteen per cent in our wheat acreage. In referring to the surplus of wheat, the pamphlet issued by the government states that this surplus has continued to increase since 1928. It states also that the surplus began to accumulate in 1924. There may be a surplus of wheat in the world; I do not know, but I do know that a lot of people are underfed while we have an abundance in this country. In connection with certain schemes this government seems to work in opposite directions. In 1931 tTie Prime Minister introduced a measure to provide for a bonus on wheat of five cents per bushel. A bonus upon any commodity stimulates the production of that commodity. In 1931 there was more inducement to produce wheat than to produce barley or oats because the man who produced wheat got a bonus of five cents per bushel while the man who produced the other grains got nothing. The government knew that a surplus existed in 1931 because they so state in this pamphlet, yet they introduced a measure which had no other effect than to stimulate the production of wheat. The man who produced the most wheat got the most money. The government's action is just like a tug-of-war where the forces are equal; there is a pulling at each end but there is no motion either way-the government just stays put.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

The Address-Mr. Beaubien
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: At six o'clock I was dealing with the wheat reduction agreement and our quota for exportation, and I pointed out that, according to the pamphlet I have here on the wheat agreement at the London conference, in the year 1928 surpluses of wheat became quite apparent. The pamphlet states that the annual wheat production had by that time become greater than the effective demand from the importing countries. Yet this government, if this statement is true, in 1931 gave a bonus of five cents a bushel to the producers of wheat in Canada-a bonus that could have had no other effect than to increase the production of wheat; because the producer of barley did not get that nickel, nor did the producer of oats or of any other commodity receive it. The man who produced a bushel of wheat was sure to get five cents. Notwithstanding this, hon. gentlemen come along now and tell the people that they must reduce their acreage by fifteen per cent. If the statement to which I have referred is correct, that in 1928 there was a surplus of wheat in the world to the extent indicated, why did this government give a bonus on wheat production in 1931? If they wanted to indemnify the farmers for the low cost of their commodity, why did they not give them a bonus on all their production? And how did they apply the five oent bonus? The man who produced a considerable quantity of wheat got the five cents and the man who produced no wheat got nothing.
Now, if there is a surplus of wheat in the world to-day as the government contends, and I doubt it, how will they bring about a reduction in wheat acreage? There are only two ways I know of: one is to nationalize the land and control production, and if you do that you go over to the C.C.F.; and the other is to give the farmer a bonus for not seeding the acreage he intended to seed. Those are the only two ways I know of. The Canadian people are not ready for the nationalization of land and the control of production by the government, and the government is evidently not in a position to give a bonus inasmuch as it discontinued the bonus in 1932. But what do the importing countries engage themselves to do in this contract? What obligation have they undertaken? They have undertaken not to increase further the wheat acreage and not to increase production by governmental measures. There is a move in England to-day-and I am sure
the Minister of Trade and Commerce is we>i. awaTe of it-to double the production ol wheat in that country. If you read Mosley's books you will see that, according to him, wheat production can be vastly increased in England; and as the Minister of Trade and Commerce knows, since England has adopted the protective system the farmer is looking for protection on lids wheat. If he gets it he will increase his wheat production tremendously. The importing countries have engaged not to use governmental measures as a means of increasing the production of wheat, but there is nothing else to prevent them.
No, Mr. Speaker, acreage reduction as proposed in this agreement is not practicable, and I doubt whether the government will pass any legislation to put such a policy into force. Indeed, I do not know what sort of legislation they could pass to enforce such a policy. The western premiers may be in favour of the agreement; but the western premiers are not the producers of wheat. I made a survey of rural Manitoba this summer since the promulgation of the wheat agreement and this is what the farmers say; What right had the Prime Minister of Canada to go to England and enter into such an agreement and come and tell us what we shall do? Whom did the Prime Minister consult in this matter? Mr. J. I. McFarland, I suppose-and I do Dot know that he did consult that gentleman, because if he did it is the first time he has ever consulted anyone. At any rate, the farmers are not in favour of the wheat agreement, and if this government persists in the policies it has been putting into force since 1930 it will not need a wheat reduction agreement. Why, the machinery on the farm to-day is getting obsolete. If this continues, in a year or two the farmer will have no machinery with which to produce wheat. And if the present policies of the government are continued, how will the farmer buy new machinery? It takes everything you can grow on a quarter section to 'buy a 'binder; so that if the present policies remain in force no wheat reduction agreement will be needed. I think the Prime Minister had better leave it to the grasshoppers; they have been responsible for more reduction than this agreement will bring about.
May I deal for a moment or two with the resolution that was passed the other day with regard to the investigation into the causes of the wide spread between prices received for commodities by the producer and prices
The Address-Mr. Beaubien

paid by the consumer, the system of distribution and so forth. I am not opposed to mass buying, provided the consumers get the benefit. But what the people want to find out to-day, at any rate the people whom I represent, is how these industries function- industries that stand behind a tariff wall ranging from 25 to 75 per cent. The people want to know how such industries are functioning and to what extent they are exploiting the Canadian public. The farmer wants to know why the government imposed a 25 per cent duty on cream separators to protect the manufacturer producing about seven thousand cream separators in Canada, while putting this implement on the free list from Great Britain, where cream separators are not made.
Mass buying on the part of chain stores and large concerns has benefited the consumers to a great degree. Take the situation in western Canada. Before the chain stores and large concerns like Eaton's went into the west we did not know what we were paying for the things we bought. To-day things are different; there is competition and the consumers get the benefit of it. But it is in regard to the industries which this government has been protecting to a degree never witnessed before that the Canadian people want some information. They want to find out how these industries are financed, how much watered stock there is in the companies, and to what extent they are exploiting the Canadian people.
Let me refer to the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis). If the hon. gentleman or any other hon. member coming from Manitoba and sitting on the other side of the house would pay less attention to the question whether I am a national Progressive or a national Liberal Progressive, and devote their time to an effort to influence this government to put into force policies that would relieve the people of western- Canada, I suggest that their time would be much better spent. It would be far more beneficial than any effort they may make to find out whether I am a Liberal Progressive or anything else.
I see my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Mullins). I know he does not agree with the policies of the government. Let these hon. gentlemen leave me out of their consideration; instead, let them try to induce the government to institute policies that will help western Canada to get out of the chaotic condition in which it is to-day. If they do that I am sure their electors will appreciate it a good deal more than I fancy they appreciate their present attitude.

The needs in my riding and in western Canada generally, in fact all over Canada, are these-and I am speaking more or less from an agricultural standpoint-lower tariffs. Let the manufacturer do as the farmer is doing; let him stand on his own feet. Secondly, agricultural credits, short term credits, are essential. The farmers want to have a chance to carry on, but they cannot do so if they are forced to sell their goods in competition with the world while at the same time they have to buy in markets restricted by tariffs to the extent of anywhere from 25 to 75 per cent. I am not looking for much higher prices for farm products; what I do look for is for the commodities which the farmer has to buy to come down and more or less meet the price which he receives for his products. That is what we want in western Canada.
If the government do not change their policies or if they do not go to the country very soon, the agricultural industry may be badly hampered. When they do go before the people, let me say once again to those hon. members who are so anxious about my political name, that they are not going to be asked whether Beaubien is a Liberal, Progressive or anything else; but they will be asked this: Did you support a government that imposed a duty on agricultural implements, on cream separators, on practically every commodity that the farmer has to buy? When they are asked that question, what answer will they give? They will simply say that they supported the policy of the government, which was detrimental to western Canada.
Those matters which I have placed before the house are dear to my people; they are necessary to them and I hope the government will pay heed to what 1 have said and endeavour to introduce legislation in conformity with the suggestions I have made. If they do so, I am sure the people of western Canada and particularly those whom I represent will be greatly benefited.
Mr. E. C. ST-PERE (Hochelaga) (Translation) :	Mr. Speaker, my first words will be
of congratulations to the hon. members who moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They accomplished their task with a loyalty and sincerity which has always been the practice and will continue so, as long as the Dominion parliament intends to follow such a parliamentary procedure.
The speech from the throne places on the lips of the representative of His Majesty the following words:

The Address-Mr. St-Pere
Such improved world conditions are reflected in Canada by expanding trade, improving revenues, increasing employment, and a more confident outlook upon the future.
These utterances, sir, do not convey exactly the truth. It is. a fact, as the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Parent) stated this afternoon that some trade improvement has been somewhat felt; however, like him, I state that this improvement in our business relations with the various dominions and the United Kingdom must not be attributed so much to the imperial agreements as to the temporary advantages derived from exchanges. An increase of work among the labouring classes 1 I wonder where one sees this improvement. As a member of a large working division in the city of Montreal, in vain do I seek where this increase exists. The unemployed in the section where I reside, are more numerous than ever; notwithstanding the great publicity given recently to a news item, emanating, I do not know where, to the effect that our large Canadian Pacific workshops were to employ 3,000 men more. After making inquiries among those interested, I wish to state in the house that workers in the Angus shops confessed to me that the staff had hardly been increased by 400 men. Indeed, if one considers that this is a large increase among the working classes, I must state that this government bases its contentions on erroneous figures.
In these days of crisis, sir, I think the government and members should be the first to practise economy. I note that since the beginning of the session-I blame no one, because it is a member's privilege to place on the order paper, the resolution which he *wishes to introduce-it has been costly and we have lost precious time in discussing many suggestions as old as the hills, resolutions which for a number of years have been submitted to international labour congresses at Geneva, and that the international labour bureau have considered without coming to any practical decision.
What will be the remedies? The insurance against unemployment, so much advocated by our friends to the left, has been discussed time and again, at Geneva; the delegates of the various nations have morally approved of this rehabilitation scheme, but no government, may I state, has ever put into practice such a suggestion without first exacting a contribution from those interested. The same may be said of old age pensions, insurance against disability and sickness. These are projects that all admit in principle. Were I a millionaire there would be no orphans in my electoral division; however, unfortunately for myself and many others, my circumstances do not permit me to be so generous towards all these charitable movements and social relief schemes. These are great economic and social problems which we are unable to solve to-day owing to the depression existing.
The question of working hours comes under the same heading. It has not been definitely settled in this country; however, I must state, to the credit of the Quebec provincial government, that the first steps to solve this question have been made by the hon. Minister of Labour, Mr. Arcand. A measure has been introduced dealing with the subject. This question of defining the hours of labour was discussed, last year, at the International Labour Conference and what was the outcome? The representatives of the various nations thought fit to submit again this question to the conference which will be held in the course of 1934. Did high protection succeed in bringing to our workers this relief to which they were so much entitled? Will the public undertakings mentioned bring to our workers, our destitute unemployed, this relief, this positive help which they have a right to expect? Indeed, sir, these are remedies which we must accept, they are temporary solutions of the unemployment problem; however, they are not, so to speak, the true solution to such an important question.
There was born in this country, a short while ago, a party which boasts of being able to settle all these important questions to which the nations of the world have sought in vain, 'hitherto, to find a practical solution. I caime 'across, to-day, an old pamphlet which I purchased as far back as 1901, an essay on the evolution of socialistic theories in the various countries. May I, sir, read to the house, an excerpt on social reformers known as "possibilists." After listening to it, you will realize that its program very much resembles that of the C.C.F.:
The "Possibilists" or Reformists-They comprise the most moderate and practical element of the party, but the least listened to. The strict adherents somewhat despise them and qualify very disrespectfully their acts of "soothing syrup and hubbubboos." The "Possibilists" disdain violent means unless they are absolutely necessary. They prefer moving forward gradually, without agitation, revolution and shock, making use of simple legal means, they are convinced that it is possible to thus reach their goal. They contend that the labouring classes being in majority and controlling the vote can assume power and legally reform society without having recourse to revolutionary means which cause so many victims, is always tainted with much injustice, and is always followed by a great transient crisis and a period of general distress during

The Address-Mr. St-Pere
which every one suffers, and which, because of the discouragement and fears it creates, paves the way to disorders. Their motto is "Let us be revolutionists when circumstances demand it, but let us always be reformists. "
It is the most human method, the surest, the best from every angle.
In order to inform a number of our workers who sometimes are led by certain impulses, and misguided agitation, may I place in Hansard the views of Count de Mun, one of the greatest leaders of workmen that France has known. He expressed himself as follows in the French chamber:
You discuss before the people the entrancing prospect of a collectivist society of which no one of you can explain the functions. No, I state, "None of you," no more Mr. Jaures than Mr. [DOT]Jnles Guesde, none! I have heard splendid speeches, glowing accounts, broad formulas, but I have never found any one to explain the following two fundamental points: the distribution and remuneration of labour; and as long as this has not been done, nothing practical will come of it except the idea of a monstrous despotism.
The following is a brief comment made by His Holiness Leo XIII, the workmen's Pope, in discussing similar doctrines:
If such a system was ever realized, it would create disturbance among all classes of society and burden all citizens with a shameful and unbearable yoke; it opens a wide door to mutual jealously, discontent, and disorder; it deprives work and skill of their goal, draining wealth at its source; finally to equality eo cherished it substitutes an ignoble equality in destitution and distress.
I leave, sir, to the Canadian workers who suffer from the present crisis, the task of judging where is to be found the truth and to choose the best means to obtain justice. We have heard of industrial control. I have Closely followed, since the National Recovery Act was adopted, what is taking place in the United States. No doubt President Roosevelt for some time past has made strenuous efforts to find a general solution which can apply to the problems which interest his country and which, so to speak, interest all the nations of the world.
Over there, as it is the case here, the president cannot please every one. The labouring classes in the United States have requested him to increase the price of articles of prime necessity; he did so; however, some labour organizations claimed that wages, fixed according to definite schedules, were not increasing in direct ratio of the articles mentioned. There again are to be found impediments to the realization of certain hopes.
Another scheme to relieve unemployment in our large cities is the back-to-the-land movement. Colonization has certainly its

bright side; however, if this were the only means of relieving the crisis in our cities, the situation would be desperate. That is again, some remedy.
In the course of the Yamaska election-and it is a happy recollection that I have of this election campaign-1 chatted about this scheme with a number of farmers. Their reply was: W ell, sir, for heaven's sake do insist that the moneys set aside for colonization purposes be placed in a special fund, so as to bring back to our villages our old farmers who understand all about farming, they that abandoned the land, not because they disliked it, but because financial difficulties forced them to do so.
Among the suggested remedies is to be found quite a recent one, the one which the right hon. Prime Minister advocated the night before last, I think, in the city of Toronto. He stated that we would pull through the crisis if we practised thrift and worked. I share his views; however, let us be frank, let us examine whether all those who have practised thrift and worked have reached this millennium which the right hon. Prime Minister wished on his audience in Toronto. We have in our large cities-the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) referred to it the other day-the unemployment question complicated by 'the one still more acute, of the distress to be found among small property holders. During that period when so much money was expended in dole, this man who was thrifty, this citizen who often is a workman, is faced, notwithstanding the moratorium enacted by our provincial legislatures, with ruin. The state, one must admit, hardly considered the one who is, so to speak, the buffer between the wealthy profiteer and those who take refuge in communism. This man was left to his own resources; no one thought of helping him in the present crisis. How can we preach, later, thrift and work to the children of those who soon will be completely destitute after having practised thrift all their life; to the families of those who have become poorer to create wealth, and have contributed more than certain financial magnates to the prosperity of this country?
President Roosevelt pondered more than our legislators over the situation of these unfortunate people. From the very first days of the organization of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, the President of the United States had the sum of $2,000,000,000 voted, issuing bonds, the capital and interests of which are guaranteed by the United States federal government. Oh! one may state that


S, 1934
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. St-Pere
this government-if we must adhere to the articles of the confederation agreement-must come to terms in this respect with the provinces. One may state that the government cannot interfere because the contracts agreed upon between the creditors who hold the mortgages and the mortgagees are within the purview of the civil courts of the various provinces. Similar conditions exist in the United States. Those who have studied the United States constitution know with what jealousy the state rights are guarded, in the United States. Roosevelt did not hesitate before this obstacle. He came to an agreement with the various state governments. The latter hold themselves responsible for the capital represented by these bonds, guarantee the interest, being protected by the clause that the federal government will come to their rescue, if ever circumstances require it.
Such protection could be given to the rights of these small property holders who, in our large cities represent the majority, I shall not say as to the value but number of real estate holders. I fear, sir, if this assistance is denied to them by both dominion and provincial governments, we shall soon have in our large cities a real estate trust. This is most alarming and I regret that I have to reveal to the house the views expressed by a foremost banker to a friend of mine, a member of a city council. This is how certain large business men appreciate the sacrifices, the work and economy to which the right hon. Prime Minister alluded the night before last in Toronto. Oh! the banker said, to this councillor, these small property holders have all our sympathy, however, in a crisis like the one we are undergoing, we must put up with the consequences of this economic disturbance. These properties, he said, will be acquired by other real estate owners. The situation will become normal. The credit of our cities will be guaranteed and every one will end by being happy." Frankly, sir, this banker could not have been raised in the ridings we represent, because he would have more respect for those who deposited their money in our banking institutions.
It may be contended, perhaps, under present circumstances that small property holders must put up with the crisis just like those who have had reverses on the stock exchange or elsewhere. Here again, we must lay down the economic "distinguo." The small property holder who has placed his savings in real estate is not a speculator in the true sense of the word. He invested his savings in a
property which he intended to set aside as a legacy to his family. His investment was not made in the hope of reaping a rainbow or confiding his future to the tail of a financial comet, but he economized so that not only his family but also the state would benefit by it, because such an investment would increase our national asset.
The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaiubien) approved a short While ago, in principle at least, the resolution introduced the other day by the right bon. Prime Minister, purporting to have a special committee appointed to investigate the spread existing between the cost of manufactured products and their distribution to consumers. The member for Hochelaga, sir, approves in principle this investigation; he however recalls a blue book published by the House of Commons, which he read in connection with the inquiry held in 1919 as regards the cost of living. In the course of this investigation, the directors of certain large industries, questioned by the hon. minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) and Mr. Pringle, etc., confessed having made large profits, shameful profits. I wonder, sir, whether, notwithstanding these direct proofs, these same industries lowered the sale price of their goods. Nothing was done, sir. We trust, however, that the next investigation will have more positive results and that a practical penalty will be meted out. to the guilty ones, if any. I shall not refer to a recent investigation, the outcome of which is at present "sub judioe."
There seems to exist some fear in the house to express views which might be construed as bold and revolutionary. I can only think of one wiay to balance all the budgets of our dominion, provincial and municipal governments that of lowering the rate of interest on liabilities. There are not only the small consumers, those deprived of wealth or the middle classes who are called upon to make sacrifices in a period of crisis. Whether the views which I shall express may displease some, I must nevertheless submit them to the consideration of the house. In so doing, I find myself in good company, as a number of eminent economists-although I have not the faith of a peasant of Britanny in all economic theses-numerous business men throughout the world have expressed their views.
Some speeches delivered in the house display a lack of social psychology. I am amazed to hear a number of members forecast nn approaching revolution in this country, where people are truly Christians. Have the un-
The Address-Mr. St-Pere
[Stage Direction]
employed in Canada manifested heretofore, any signs of wishing to destroy society? A few seditious speeches have been made by certain foreign elements which immigration has brought to our shores. Our unemployed expect but one thing from our legislators: the enacting of economic measures devoid of nationalism destroyers and tending, thanks tio international cooperation, to bring back prosperity.
It is urgent, sir, to display statesmanship at times.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Hear, hear.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation): I shall read in this respect an excerpt from a pamphlet published by the Rev. Father Alexandre Dugre, of the Society of Jesus:
No state can too much rely on its strength, or, especially, look upon as vigorous what is really a premonition of decline and ruin: such as the power of money. The concentration of wealth in the hands of a few unscrupulous directors or promoters deprived of social sense, who work in lobbies of parliaments-
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Hear, hear.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation):
-and together with a controlled press in order to have measures enacted and obtain favours benefiting a group of financiers, to the detriment of the great majority of poor people, that is no more democracy or aristocracy, it is, in truth, plutocracy, the tyranny of Mammon, crowned avarice, economic dictatorship and "l'usura vorax," stigmatized by Pius XI and Leo XIII.
It behooves all legislators to examine their conscience.
What will be the outcome of the present crisis? Together with their colleagues opposite the Liberals hope that it may end as soon as possible. What will be its effect? It has been noxious, heretofore, let us hope that it will be, in the future beneficial, I shall explain mysellf: The present crisis has forced us to confess our sins of commission and omission.
Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):: That is so!
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation):	We have
been somewhat too proud and unforeseeing; state ownernship in certain provinces, extravagant expenditures in others and the little thought we gave to future, has brought on hardships of which we now feel the aftermath.
Let us be wiser in the future. The important conferences held here and there emphasize this indifference on the part of all

nations. What strikes one is that in all these quarters where much discussion take place, where little legislation is enacted, where, however, all human ills are recognized, where the causes of the depression are analyzed, where one especially notes that the nationalism of states, high protection, lack of stability of currency, etc., are the causes of the distress we are suffering-these great conferences always end without results and put off the important discussions to relieve the present ills. When shall we return to our senses?


Mr. SPEAKER (Text):: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.
Mr. ST-PERE (Text): Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words to add. (Translation): The government's duty is clear. The right hon. Prime Minister quoted, recently, these words of Talleyrand, the great French statesman: "that it was praiseworthy for a public man to become unpopular through the enactment of certain measures which he advocated." Let the right hon. Prime Minister also recall this other statement of Talleyrand: "In my opinion, the true interest of France can never be opposed to those of Europe." Let the right hon. Prime Minister, so as to arrive at some solution of our great problems, be the first to set the example. Let him recall the words of Tilley: "That a word from Canada might have great weight in solving the economic questions which are world wide." Let the Prime Minister of Canada, although an adherent of "Canada First" recall that the true interests of Canada should never be opposed to the true interests of the whole world. This being the case, we shall have moved a step towards the great solution; we shall have set to the world an example of disinterestedness and manifested our good will to definitely settle these problems, the unsettledness of which really hinders the recovery of world prosperity.


Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that owing to my inability to understand the French language. I cannot discuss any of the points raised by the last speaker (Mr. St-Pere) in the debate. My remarks this evening however arise from my sense of duty to bring before this house some of the points which have not been raised during the present debate, place before hon. members the points of view of some of the industrial workers in Canada, and to describe the conditions existing in Canada's largest industrial city.
I listened intently to the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) concerning the



[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Mitchell
growth in trade and the increase in employment in agriculture and other primary industries. While I do not wish to be considered a fatalist or one who would paint a gloomy picture when conditions do not warrant it, I must state frankly that so far as my constituency is concerned the enormous expansion in employment and development in trade described by the Prime Minister is certainly not in evidence. I have before me a statement over the signature of Mayor Wilton of the city of Hamilton, presented at the last meeting of the city council in that city, which, at least by implication, indicates the increase in the relief burden within the last two weeks. For the week ending January 13,	1934, there were 7,225
families on relief, whereas in the previous two weeks there were only 6,813, showing an increase of slightly over 400 families. If we figure that out on the basis of five to a family I believe it would be fair to state that
35.000	men, women and children are being fed through the efforts of the various organizations in that great industrial city. On top of this must be put the 450 heads of families who throughout the building and construction program of the provincial government were taken off relief because of their ability to sustain themselves.
I should like to set out clearly the position in which the industrial centres of Ontario find themselves at the moment in connection with this very important problem. They are at their wits' end to know how to meet the situation. A resolution was brought before the city council of my community at its last meeting asking that the whole burden of relief be taken off the backs of the cities of Ontario because of their inability, in their opinion, in the near future to meet the enormous burdens brought about by the tremendous unemployment situation confronting them. In the city of Hamilton at the moment we are spending more on relief than on all other city activities combined, with the exception of education. That will give the house some indication of the very real problem that is facing those charged with the responsibility of taking care of those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unable to earn a livelihood.
During the past week we have heard a lot about governments and policies in other countries, and we have been told that the people of this dominion are not interested in some of the policies that have been set in motion in these other countries. But, Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair for me to say that inactivity on the part of a government appeals to the people of this dominion much less. Certainly no responsibility can be placed on the working people of this dominion for the present depression. They are the innocent and unfortunate victims of . its consequences. Many jokes have been made about the consequences of this depression. We hear quips over the radio about the fortunes lost in the stock market on October 29, 1929, and thereafter. I am frank to admit that it is permissible to treat such things with levity, but I would like to impress upon the house that what the working classes of this country have lost has been the product of their sweat and toil, the product of the money which they have saved in an effort to keep a shelter over their heads and to meet the normal obligations of family life and educate their children
Mention has been made of soap box orators in this country. I would point out that the present Prime Minister of Great Britain received his early education in public speaking on a soap box. Viscount Snowden also received his early training in public speaking on a soap box, and I might add that in his early political life in this country the grandfather of the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) spoke from what might be termed a soap box. It would be well if some of the people who criticize soap box orators went out and did a little soap boxing themselves, and then they would come into close contact with the people who make up the life of this dominion and would be able to get their reactions ito the conditions now prevailing in this country.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the working people have a right to ask the defenders of the present system why they are losing their homes through no fault of their own, and why their children whom by their toil they have provided with an education are unable to find employment, and why men, women and children in this country are receiving the very minimum of food with which to sustain life. Why should they go dhort of raiment when the factories remain idle, and at a time when people are desperate and are eager to go to work? Those are questions that must be answered, and answered, I believe, very shortly.
The speech from the throne mentions that there has been another federal-provincial conference-a conference veiled in secrecy. I think it is fair to say that the people of this dominion know very little of the outcome of the policies that were placed before that conference by the representatives of the respective governments. We have been told that some of
The Address-Mr. Mitchell
[Stage Direction]
the policies which that conference would have liked to set in motion could not be carried out. because of the British North America Act. The people of this dominion have a right to know who and which governments were responsible for such disagreement, so that in the provinces we can go out and meet these provincial governments and endeavour to create the necessary public opinion which is the driving force under which our democratic institutions function, so that these policies which many people think are practical may be put into effect, instead of being discarded because they are not in conformity with the British North America Act. I would like to have known the exact positions that were taken at that conference, the nature of the discussions, and the objections that were made, for instance, to a reduction in interest rates. That is a problem which in my judgment has to be faced, and it is being faced to-day by every forward-looking government in the civilized world. Only in to-night's paper hon. gentlemen may have read that it is being faced in a resolute way by the government to the south of us.
The problem of the financial obligations of the four western provinces is also one that I believe must be faced in a resolute way. I do not think that this federal government can go on indefinitely paying the normal running expenses of the governments of those four western provinces. A policy on that question might easily have been evolved at the federal-provincial conference looking towards action similar to that which was taken in Australia, where they had a so-called premier's conference attended by the representatives of the federal government and of the various states, and where a policy to meet the depression in that country was formulated-a reduction in the internal interest rate by twenty-two and a fraction per cent.
I was in England this year and I believe that the pick-up in business there, particularly in the building trade, has been largely brought about through their conversion loans and the reduction in interest rates. Money is now moving into productive channels in which it was not moving so long as the enormous rates of interest prevailed that arose out of the great war.
I was very much interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett), who advocated a back-to-the-land policy. There is nothing new in that, and I should like to know what is the view of the government in that respect, having regard to their policy for a restricted production of wheat. Frankly I believe that the wheat

agreement is bound to fail. I do not think that governments have reached the stage where they can control the elements, and on that ground alone I do not think that any contraction or expansion of production can be satisfactorily foretold in a practical way. In my opinion the problem involved in the wheat agreement is similar to that faced today by the industrial structure of this country. It is nothing less than tragedy, when people are able to obtain only the barest necessities of life, that the government should set in motion a policy which will contract the production of the foodstuffs which the people should be receiving.
Prior to the recent federal-provincial conference there was much ballyhoo in the newspapers in connection with the possible institution of an unemployment insurance plan in this country. We were given to believe-this is not the first time-that the plan was ready and would be submitted at this session of parliament. Frankly, I see no reason why such a policy oould not be earned out. It has the support of both major political parties in this house; it has the support, I understand, of most of the provincial governments, and I think it will be supported by public opinion from one end of this country to the other. Notwithstanding the apparent disagreement, I still think the suggestion I made last year is a sound one and should be carried out. A commission should be instituted immediately by the federal government to go into every phase of this scheme. It is said that the present is not the time for the institution of such a policy, but I do regard that as a sound argument. Such a policy should be .carried out even if it is necessary to start in a small way.
When I was in Great Britain this year I was amazed at the changes which had taken place since I left there as a boy. There is one factor in connection with such a scheme which is not recognized by the business interests in this dominion. In England to-day there are millions of pounds in circulation which normally would be in the banks and strong boxes if it were not for the driving force of the social insurances. Such a scheme increases the speed of the circulation of currency. The men in England are receiving their insurance payments by right. There is no loss of dignity, because it is something for which they have paid. In my judgment that is a far better method than the undignified manner in which we are handling the unemployment situation in this country. Here we have a loss of pride and, as I have said

The Address-Mr. Mitchell
before, pride is necessary in the development of any country. The federal government should give serious consideration to this aspect of the problem.
I have seen a number of resolutions in connection with the St. Lawrence deep waterway. My own city council has asked me to support any measure which will bring about the early starting of this great enterprise. In my judgment, this waterway will quicken the life of the whole of eastern Canada and extraordinary benefits will accrue to the people of western Canada. If I remember rightly, the matter was mentioned last year in the speech from the throne. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has referred to it in a sympathetic way, and I urge the government to maintain that sympathetic interest in this project. Should the treaty be ratified by the United Stales government, this government should take every step to bring about the commencement of this great enterprise which would add two thousand miles to the coastline of Canada. I believe the project is sound economically and in every other way.
I am glad to know that the government have at last decided upon a building program. This is one of the reasons why I am speaking this evening. One of the greatest tragedies of the depression is the suffering of the building tradesmen. In the city from which I come, at the present moment ninety-five per cent of those employed in the building trades are out of work. Such a condition is a challenge to our intelligence. Thousands of highly skilled men are ready and eager to go to work and put their hands to the task of building necessary public institutions. They are ready to take up the task of building better homes, and God knows they are necessary in certain centres. Before a policy is laid down in connection with this matter, I should like to leave this thought with the government. They should try and avoid the error which was made by the government of Ontario, which inaugurated a scheme and stated that only those on relief should be employed. Such a stipulation is absolutely unfair, because thousands of men who had been employed in the building industry have not gone on relief, notwithstanding the fact that they have been out of work for some time. When this scheme is set in motion some consideration should be given by the federal and provincial governments to these men. The hours of labour should be such as to permit the employment of the greatest number of men possible, and the fair wages clause should be insisted upon and incorporated in every contract awarded by the government.
I do not think that this building program should be financed by the borrowing of new money. We should avail ourselves of our own credit. This could be done by means of noninterest bearing certificates, subject to recall in such stages as may be laid down. I do not think we should pay tribute to money when we find it necessary to put these men to work One of the things we had better learn quickly is that human life should take precedence over mere money; we must realize that whether we like it or not. I believe that is going to be one of the principles which will be established before we are out of this depression.
It is unfortunate that suffering has always been the midwife of progress. People do not seem to bother about thinking when everything is going smoothly. All great reforms and great changes have come out of the hours of travail when nations have been hard pressed This has always been the case in every forward movement where old ideas have been divorced for the taking on of new.
In conclusion I will say a word or two in connection with the proposed central bank. I shall be frank and admit that what I say reflects the viewpoint of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. We believe that our banking and credit structure should be nationalized, because it will control the destiny of this country and decide whether a man shall go to work or be out of employment. The potentialities for good and evil are so great in such an institution that only those who are responsible to the people themselves should be charged with the responsibility of its operation. I think it is fair to say that the banking and credit structure functions normally like a great public utility. It stands in the same relationship to the people of the country as the very water we drink, the very electricity we use, and those many other social services which, in our evolutionary development, we have decided from time to time are too important to be left in the hands of ariy private individual. The position taken 'by congress is sound, and when the government lays down its policy in connection with the central bank I think it should insist, in conformity with the great mass of public opinion in this dominion, that the bank shall be owned and controlled by the government of the country.
Mr. MARTIAL RHEAUME (St. John's-Iberville) (Translation):: throne, and I shall avail myself of this opportunity to comment- on a few excerpts of the speech delivered by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil). I find, at page 18 of Hansard, the following words:
-and the price of pork has more than doubled in the course of the last twelve months.
Had the hon. member for Compton gone back two years, he would have discovered that pork sold, in May, 1932, $6 per cwt. for carcass; in June, $7; in July, S6.50, $7, S7.50; in August, $7; in September, $6.50; in October, $8; in November, $6.25, and in December, $5.50; in January, 1933, $5.50; February, $5.50; in March, $5.50 and in the last week of March, S8; in April, S8.50; in May, $8.50; in June, $8.50; in August, $9; in September, $9; in November, $8; in*the last days of November, $7.50; at the beginning of December, $8.50 to $9; in the last part qf December, $9.50; ;at the beginning of January, 1934, $10 and at the end of January, $11 per cwt. If one compares the prices of January, 1934, with those of January, 1933. these prices have probably doubled. If the price has increased, it is because farmers have ceased raising hogs, and those who, within the last three years have raised them have sustained losses. If I remember well, at the last session, in February last, a discussion took place between two Ontario members in connection with the pi'ice of pork. The hon. member for Compton contends that, if the price of pork has doubled within tihe last twelve months, it is due to the Imperial Conference Agreements of 193-2; however, if he consults the price list of the wholesale houses in Montreal, he will discover that there was a lapse of a year and a half before the prices went up. If they have somewhat increased, it has been within a year or so. The hon. member for Compton made another discovery. The following is his own words:
Immediately after the government assumed power, the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), adopted the policy of indemnifying the owners of steers found to be tuberculous; this put an end to an injustice and was greatly appreciated by the farming community.
I took the pains to look up the records in the library this afternoon, and went as far back as 'the budget on agriculture for the year 1925-26. The hon. member for Compton can verify himself that there was an appropriation that year of $1,877,000 for the health of animals, while the total appropriation for agriculture amounted to $6,600,000; in 1927 there is an item of $1,900,000 for the health of animals; in 1927-28, $2,140,000; in 1928-29, $2,258,000; in 1929-30, $2,900,000; in 1930-31,

in the first budget brought down by the hon. Minister of Agriculture in this government, we find an appropriation of $2,500,000, namely a decrease of $400,000 as compared with the previous year; in 1931-32, we find a decrease of $300,000; in 1932-33, a decrease of $896,000; and finally in 1933-34 a further decrease of $225,000; which means that for this item alone, the Department of Agriculture expends, to-day, 50 per cent less than the outlay made by the Liberals when in power in 1929-30. Yet the hon. member for Compton thinks he has made quite a discovery !


Mr. GOBEIL (Translation):: That does not destroy my argument.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Perhaps
not; however it certainly does not strengthen it, since these figures prove that the Liberal government appropriated double the amount which the Conservatives now expend.


Samuel Gobeil: My argument remains unaffected.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: One can
always argue; the question is whether such arguments carry weight, that is what counts.
The hon. member for Compton further states in his speech that the contaminated cattle are shipped to Montreal, slaughtered and those thought fit for human consumption are sold. Probably that has the effect of somewhat lowering the prices of meat, I agree with him on this point. The following is what the hon. member suggests:
I would suggest that there be added to the indemnity paid to the farmer for his contaminated cattle, the price which he receives for the carcass of these animals and that tfie latter instead of finding their way to our markets, be used as fertilizers.
If the memory of the hon. member for Compton serves him right, he will recall that at the first session that -I had the privilege of sitting in the house, in 1931, I placed on the order paper a motion tending to increase the indemnity paid to the farmer for contaminated ca-ttle. I had personally observed, during the previous years, in 1927, 1928 and 1929, when the government inspectors submitted the cattle to the tuberculine test, in the county of St. John's and Iberville, that farmers did not receive the indemnity to which they were entitled. Milch cows, then, were worth between $100 and $125 and the maximum price paid in the county of St. John's-Iberville was $38. Some farmers only received $10, $15 or $20, the amount of the indemnity depended on the value of the contaminated cow. I thought it proper



[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Rheaume
to introduce this resolution because I had personally noticed the losses sustained by the farmers when the test was applied. I believed that this increase in indemnity was a fair and reasonable one, especially when we consider that this government had stated, in the 1930 election, that they intended to do their utmost to help agriculture. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel), among others, was elected by carrying on his campaign from door to door, among the farmers of his county-he was well acquainted with his people because he had been defeated, I think, three or four times previous to the last election-promising them that, if elected, he would endeavour to have this indemnity increased. As I have some excellent friends in the county of Brome-Missisquoi, I wished to give the hon. member (Mr. Pickel) an opportunity to put this measure into practice. However, any speech favouring my resolution was made on this side of the house. To my amazement the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi stated that the opportunity was not well chosen, that the financial situation of the country prohibited such an indemnity increase. Yet the opportunity was his to prove his generous nature and fulfil an election promise. The members of the government and himself had failed to carry out their pledges; my resolution gave them an opportunity, but they refused to take advantage of it. The hon. member for Compton did not think fit to support this resolution, although he represents a rural riding which, if I be not mistaken, is included in the restricted area. The hon. member for Compton was given an opportunity to rise and support the resolution. I recall that the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) stated that the government could not accept a motion proposing an expenditure of public funds and moved by a member of the opposition.
When hon. members opposite hold meetings in their constituencies, they state that the Liberals impede legislation and have no suggestions to make to the government. On both sides of the house unnecessary talk goes on; however, some good results are achieved by the opposition as well as by the government. We are at present undergoing a crisis, I, therefore, think that the harder the times the more suggestions are needed. Some were made to the government by members of the opposition who sit on the front benches, by men who were at the helm of the country's affairs and have left their stamp, yet the government did not think fit to accept them because they came from the opposite camp. It may have happened, at times, that the 74726-26
right hon. Prime Minister has backed water, however, this has seldom happened. When consults his ministers or some of his followers, suggestions are probably made to him, it then becomes apparent that the opposition's suggestions are excellent and that it is a necessary institution; they then back water. I think that if the right hon. Prime Minister had put into practice some of their suggestions, the country would be better off.
Samuel Gobeil: Will the hon. member allow me to put a question? Is the hon. member aware that, under the Liberal regime, between 1921 and 1930, the indemnity paid for contaminated cattle was reduced?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I accept
the hon. member's word, however, I cannot be held responsible for errors the government may have committed, because I was not then a member. Had I been I would have taken my share of responsibility. If the government of that day blundered, we were ready to make amends in 1931, we were disposed to do better; however, the partisans of this government who had pledged themselves to bring up this question, among others, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, forgot their promises and refused to help us.
The hon. member for Compton made special reference to butter. I think that if he sits in the house, it is partly due to the butter question. The hon. member contends that, under the Liberal regime, in 1929, butter sold for 39 cents per pound and 31 cents in 1930, while in New York it sold for 40 cents. I think that the price of butter in the United States does not concern us. I have not' had the privilege of hearing the hon. member speak in his constituency; however, his friends in the counties of St. John-Iberville, Chambly-Vercheres, Laprairie-Napierville, Brome-Missisquoi, etc., were shocked to find that butter sold at 39 cents per pound in 1929; they were greatly discouraged and lamented over the fate of the poor farmer! I wonder what would have been their thoughts had butter sold 16 and 17 cents per pound as was the case under this government's regime.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: People
would have crucified them.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I do not
know whether they would have been crucified, however, tears would perhaps have caused their death.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Crocodiln
tears 1

The Address-Mr. Rheaume


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Perhaps
false tears, those of a politician. I recall that one day the hon. member for Compton, in an oratorical flight, stated that the farmer of Quebec should be thankful for the prices he obtained for his farm products. I think, I protested and told the hon. member for Compton that this was not quite the program on which he had been elected in 1930.


Samuel Gobeil: Mr. Speaker,
I rise to a point of order. It is the second time the hon. member misrepresents my statements. He was called to order last year, he nevertheless persists again and puts on my lips words which I never uttered and are not in Hansard.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I accept
the word of the hon. member for Compton. At all events, if he wishes to hold a meeting with free discussion, he can invite me to his county, we shall then be able to discuss his statement, Hansard in hand.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: One will-be held.


Samuel Gobeil: You are invited.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I accept.
The hon. member stated that, from 1921 to 1930, the United States increased their tariff on Canadian butter from 2 to 14 cents per pound, and, on cream, almost 50 cents per gallon. Notwithstanding these tariff barriers to prevent our products from entering their country, the farmers sold their butter more than double the price they obtain to-day. They then sold their butter at 39 cents per pound, yet our hon. friends were very despondent. The Conservatives always refer to the price of butter or of commodities in the United States. A fact that hon. members opposite cannot deny, is that the United States government and the president have prepared a program which will benefit the farmer.


Mr. LAFLECHE (Translation):: The
farmers are on strike.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: The estimates of Department of Agriculture which had always been on the increase from 1925 to 1930, were cut down this year nearly $1,000,000. Does this help the farming class, by cutting down the appropriations which were usually voted for agricultural purposes? It may, perhaps, be stated that the crisis is responsible for this; however, when the estimates are taken up by the house, I shall be able to show that certain estimates in some 
departments, have not decreased but have been maintained, because at the head of those departments are to be found competent men, who insist on their estimates not being cut down, while other departments have at their head men with no experience.
Now, sir, I wish to comment briefly on the speech of the hon. member for Brome Missis-quoi: He begins by congratulating the government for having granted an investigation on milk. I intend to inquire how much this investigation cost the government I do not think that it cost as much as that held- on coal, however, I think the result has been practically the same. The government did not condescend to place on the table of the house the report in connection with the inquiry held on coal. Fortunately, it was sent to the Quebec government which instituted proceedings against these companies, the latter were found to be guilty since the judge who heard the case condemned them to a fine. However, the law is rather construed to protect trusts; I hope however that means will be found to prevent these companies from dragging the case from one court to another, until it reaches the highest tribunal of the country, then transferring the ease to the Privy Council ; meanwhile continue to fleece the people, without paying their fine.
The following is an excerpt of the speech of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi:
I presume that as regards any real benefit that has resulted so far, from that investigation, the report has probably been systematically pigeon-holed, and forgotten in conformity with the usual procedure with respect to the findings of commissions. The evidence brought out by that investigation conclusively disclosed that the producer was being unfairly dealt with and exploited by the distributor, and further revealed the fact that the present system was simply creating a few millionaires in the city and driving thousands of farmers into a state of penury.
I quite agree with the hon. member, however, I state that....


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Why
criticize him if you agree with his statement?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: If the hon. member for Berthier Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette) will be patient, I think I shall be able to state why I do not agree on all points with the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, for two years back, last year and this one- he showed somewhat that he was a free lance in his speeches. I congratulate him. However, when it was a question of voting, he did so as a partisan. Furthermore, the hon. member complains that farmers are obliged

The Address-Mr. Rheaume
to pay top prices for their material. I shall quote his words:
He has to buy wire, nails, roofing, cement, lumber and a long list of expensive agricultural implements and machinery, such as cream separators.
When the question came up of raising the duty by ten per cent on barbed wire, the hon. member for Brome Missisquoi did not hang behind, he voted, when it was a matter of raising the duty by twenty-five per cent on cream separators he did not lag behind, he voted.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He adheres to his party.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: It is of
little import whether it is his party, he should not have criticized it, then voted with it. I think one should not find fault with someone then side with him.


Joseph-François Laflèche: Is the
opposition in favour of placing these products on the free list?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: My reply
to the hon. member for Richmond and Wolfe (Mr. Lafleche) is that I have not examined the question. At all events, I consider that the farmers pay already enough for cream separators and barbed wire, and that the duty should not be increased by ten per cent, in the first case, and twenty-five per cent in the other, in order to help certain friends of the party.
He states that it is entirely useless to request help from those in authority. I do not know whether this is really true.
The following is an excerpt of the evidence given when the investigation was held on milk and dairy products by the committee on agriculture and colonization. The manager of the Laiterie Saint Laurent is the person who renlies:
Q. The St. Lawrence Dairy charge 5 cents per gallon which covers the entire operation?
A. We charge 5 cents per gallon for the entire dairy operation.
Q. You charge this to purchase milk, pasteurize

A. To purchase milk, pasteurize and resell it to our milkmen.
After comparing this with the evidence given by other dairy managers, I concluded that some were perjuring themselves. I began to peruse this famous report which contains 900 pages, and I wish to state, sir, that if these witnesses had appeared before a court of justice, they would have been arrested and condemned for perjury. I am informed that an hon. member on the committee requested the chairman to dismiss this witness, stating that his evidence was in contradiction 74726-26 i
with the reports he had made, and giving as a reason that he was too old to give evidence.


Joseph-François Laflèche: Will the hon. member allow me to ask him a question?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: With
pleasure.


Joseph-François Laflèche: What are the names of those who perjured themselves at that inquiry?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I have no details in this matter; however, if the hon. member will do as I did, I shall indicate to him the pages where this evidence is to be found and he can judge for himself.
The following is another excerpt taken from the evidence given at this inquiry:
Q. Mr. Chairman, I fail to see why the committee should be obliged to go over this evidence again. We do not seem to be making progress, and the statement and answers of the witness are not satisfactory. There is not one page of the evidence we have heard within the last two hours that is free from contradiction. We shall reach no result if we do not hear the evidence of someone who has some knowledge of the financial organization of this company.
When a poor devil dares to steal a bottle of milk, in Montreal or else-where, he is condemned to pass eight days in jail; however, according to the evidence given by a former dairy manager, we find managers who, in one month alone, robbed farmers for more than $1,300 worth of milk. Yet the government which disbursed thousands of dollars to hold this investigation does not bestir itself. In the findings of the committee, at page 10 we find:	"Depreciation, bad debts, overheads,
profits and dividends, merger, purchase or absorption of other companies or enterprises, the profit of the producer on the consumer's dollar," everything is mentioned. This reminds me of a sick person who would call for a doctor, then the latter, after examining the patient would thus address him: Sir, you are very sick, you have numerous ailments, and claiming a $25 fee, would put on his hat and walk out.
If it is thought necessary to bold an investigation, to disburse thousands of dollars of public money, let them have at least the courage to remedy the evil. We have written evidence that some witnesses perjured themselves; let the government act against them. Former dairy managers have given evidence that farmers were robbed of milk. From every quarter comes the cry: "We must help the farming class." If the government are in earnest, let them begin by having those who rob the farmers arrested.

The Address-Mr. Rheaume
Referring to that witness that was thought too old to give evidence; it did not prevent him from drawing a salary of $10,000 as president of the company; his two sons were drawing 85,000, while the upkeep of their motor ears was charged to the company. Notwithstanding all this, the companies contend that their profits are too small to pay a reasonable price to the farmer's for their milk. If I follow the evidence-and it is written in excellent French-this company is so incorporated that it is the members of one family alone who control the funds supplied by outsiders.
It was proved that the president of another company draws a salary of $13,500 per year, the vice-president $13,500 and the secretary $8,000.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri) (Translation):: Were their salaries cut down 10 per cent?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I do not think so. Together, the three draw $35,000; the income tax amounted to $18,500, and the net profits to $155,000. The profits accumulated by skimming the farmer and naturally these companies are allowed to skim the consumer.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	What
about the milk?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: There is
no lack of milk. I was not, sir, a member of this committee. When I was informed that the report had been published, I communicated with the clerk of the house who was courteous enough to forward me a copy; I have begun to read it, it is very interesting.
In the speech delivered on February 1, by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, I find the following:
The milk commission of the province of Quebec could have rendered valuable service had they been so inclined. I noticed in the press during the latter part of the summer and in the fall several reports of the activities of the hon. Mr. Godbout, Minister of Agriculture for Quebec. He made this statement on several occasions, but in one speech in particular, delivered in the county of Jacques Cartier just prior to the last election, speaking among other things of his paralyzed and incompetent milk commission, he said that at the next session of the legislature legislation would be introduced to deal with the milk si tuation.
The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi seems to resent others making promises. It is true that we are often wrong in judging others by ourselves. I must inform the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi that the hon. Minister of Agriculture of Quebec performs his duty. I had the privilege of making his

acquaintance and seeing him at work. If the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi will take the trouble of inquiring, he will find that the hon. Minister of Agriculture introduced a bill in the Quebec Legislature purporting to control dairies and curb the profiteers on the Montreal island. I note that the dairy people who contend to be out of pocket have retained legal lights in their defence. The provincial Minister of Agriculture is not a colossus but he is fearless and I can assure the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi that when the former makes a promise he carries it out. The hon. member will have an opportunity of following the debate in the press and he will find out that if there is a Minister of Agriculture who seeks to do his duty, I have no hesitation in saying so, it is the hon. Minister of Agriculture of Quebec.
In another part of his speech, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi states that a number of farmers in his constituency were returned more than their share of skimmed milk. I quite believe him because the surplus of milk obtained by dairies is easy to understand, according to the evidence given by certain witnesses at the investigation on milk. I cannot define what might be considered larceny. I am not here to do so. For instance, when a manager asks an employee to oall at his office and says to him: Baptiste forwarded 10,000 pounds of milk; let 4,500 pounds be designated as surplus milk; Antoine forwarded 10,000 pounds, let 1,500 pounds be surplus milk, etc., I cannot say whether this can be considered as -larceny or embezzlement, however, I know that the same witness states that, in the space of one month this Montreal dairy stole more than $1,300 from the farmers.


Mr. BARIBEAU (Translation):: Is this company registered?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I have no information in this respect; however, if the hon. member wishes to find out as I did, let him look up the voluminous report, the reading of which requires much patience. Moreover, if my hon. friend wishes to call at my office, I shall indicate to him the pages, he will then be in a position to verify for himself the truth of my statement.


Samuel Gobeil: Have you acknowledge whether they complained?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I am unaware whether they did or not. It matters little. I state that these people are profiteers or cream skimmers and that the country should have reoommended-

The Address-Mr. McKenzie


Samuel Gobeil: Who administers justice?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: May I say to the hon. member for Compton that I think the government has such authority, but not the Quebec government. It strikes me that, when a government orders an investigation and uses public funds in so doing, it should implement the findings of the committee. If it blunders at first, it should not again do so. As to the question of coal, I am informed that there were political friends who had to be protected.
I am aware, for instance, that our poor Quebec and Ontario farmers were fleeced by the United States citizens. I do not think we should countenance these profiteers or skimmers, these people who increase the price by 40 cents per hundredweight to the consumer, and who pocket 25 cents, allowing only 15 cents of an increase to the producer, stating: We must increase the price of milk to cover our losses. We should, first, do away with these profiteers and cut down the salaries, especially in the case of a president who's salary is 810,000 per year and to whom a member of the committee had put a question which the Chairman found rather personal because it entered too much into details. It had no significance as all understood, because his answers were somewhat naive. When profiteers like the one mentioned come before a committee and we have a duty to perform they should not be spared more than others.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Is it not a fact that the price of milk was increased one cent per quart, in Montreal?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Yes, it was increased. The producer received 15 cents more per hundredweight and the dairy pocketed 25 cents.
We must conclude, sir, that if the government intends to really help the farming and working classes, it cannot too soon do so.
It is rumoured that an election will, perhaps, take place in 1934 or 1935. I do not think hon. members opposite are yet ready to face their constituents. However, I am ready; I visited my constituents on three occasions and my friends opposite may inform the right hon. Prime Minister that I am quite ready.


Samuel Gobeil: Is the hon. member certain that his constituents are in earnest?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Quite so! I received a letter from one of them and he inquires whether I would be so kind as to
inform him if, in my opinion, an election will take place because they are anxious to turn this government out of office; and this letter is signed: "A good conservative."


Joseph-François Laflèche: What is the name of this person?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I cannot divulge his name to the house; however, if my hon, friend will come up to my office,
I shall show him the letter.
In closing my remarks, sir, I request the government to act, especially, to implement the statement of the right hon. Prime Minister, that he was ready to make an outlay of $50,000,000 to help the unemployed of this country. If the Prime Minister has any scheme which might solve the unemployment problem, he can depend on our cooperation, for if we refer to the speech of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) we find that he states he is always ready to give his support to the government when it is a question of disbursing millions to relieve. the__present crisis.-
Gentlemen you have the floor 1 We await your action!


Mr. ROBERT McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, at every session of parliament the debate on the address is considered from the private member's standpoint as an occasion for us to put forward any matters of particular importance to our constituencies. It is not my intention at this time to be too parochial in my remarks, but in view of one clause in the speech from the throne, which reads-
My government propose further to promote employment by expenditures on essential public works and undertakings throughout the dominion.
-I realize that full recovery from the depression through which we are passing cannot come so long as there are so many men out of employment. But the question naturally arises whether it is a good thing for the country to go further into debt at this time, particularly for a large building program. The government decided about two years ago that relief by way of public works was too expensive, and that they would try other means. Other means have been tried, and I believe the people of the country to-day are persuaded that almost anything is preferable to the present form of relief. So I think it might be a good thing for the government to consider certain undertakings but not undertakings that will involve an annual expenditure for upkeep
The Address-Mr. McKenzie

I want to refer to a project with which the government, or at any rate some members of it, are familiar, in the constituency from which I come, namely the building of a dam across the Souris river just west of the town of Estevan. The cost of this work as estimated by engineers who have examined the matter would be about $125,000. The idea of the dam is to provide water for industrial development at this point. The town of Estevan has coal available in large quantities, and is an ideal location for industries if there were a proper water supply. My information is that some industries have decided against locating there because of the lack of a sufficient water supply. The matter is also to some extent of international interest, because one of the objects of this dam would be to control the flood waters in the spring which sometimes cause trouble not only in Saskatchewan but also across the line in Dakota. There is also the feature of regulation of water supply for the town and district. The project has been endorsed by the municipal and town councils and other organized bodies throughout the district.
The dam would be built between two hills, the work consisting of scraping down two hills approximately 1,900 feet apart and building an earthen dam about 1.900 feet long and 20 feet high. One feature that should commend the project to the government is that the work could nearly all be done by day labour, and there would be very little expenditure for materials. I have no doubt that the farmers and the unemployed in that community would work on the project in payment for the relief which they have been afforded, thereby being able to pay their relief debt. Another desirable feature is that once the dam is built, there will be no annual expenditure for maintenance. I therefore commend this matter to the consideration of the government, should they go on with a program such as is mentioned in the speech from the throne.
There are other matters mentioned in the speech from the throne which I will not dwell upon, as they have been dealt with extensively by some of my colleagues, particularly the wheat agreement and the establishment of a central bank. But I may say there was throughout the country some anxiety as to what would be contained in the speech from the throne. People expected that something would be said with regard to the economic conference recently held in London, England. To that conference some sixty-six countries sent delegates. The problems of these sixty-six countries were in many respects identical. It was hoped by a great many people, par-[Mr. R. McKenzie. 3
ticularly those engaged in production, the farmers of the west who have no market for their products, that something would be done at this conference to reopen the channels of trade which have been blocked during the last few years. Conditions among the farmers are very bad; in Saskatchewan I believe they are worse than they have ever been. That is why an announcement of what was done at that conference was anxiously awaited. We are very sorry that it proved so unsuccessful. It does not seem possible to do much through conferences with other countries; I believe that the consensus of opinion to-day is that we must try to solve our problems by action in our own country and so relieve the difficulties under which we are suffering.
It is not now and never has been my policy to accuse the government of anything of which they are not guilty. I will say that Canada in common with the rest of the world was bound to have in some degree a period of depression following the war and the uneconomic conduct of affairs that prevailed in all countries since the war. The Prime Minister in his address on January 30, quoted statistics in an endeavour to prove that there lias been a considerable improvement in economic conditions in this country. Not only he but a number of his supporters have spoken along the same lines. They appear to be satisfied. But, Mr. Speaker, I will say that the Prime Minister and his supporters in this house are the only people that you will hear give expression to that opinion. If they are satisfied, they are the only people who are.
I do not believe the people of the country, who are in such distress, will be satisfied when they read some of the speeches that have been made. We must have an improvement, and apparently it is not to come from this government, if they are so well satisfied with conditions as they are. I was rather encouraged when on October 11 last, I heard over the radio the Prime Minister address a meeting of the board of trade of the city of Winnipeg. Whether it was the environment in the city of Winnipeg, or some other reason,
I cannot say, but one statement I heard the Prime Minister make then I have never heard him make since, either in this House of Commons or any other place, namely, that the tariff legislation passed by the present government is only a temporary measure. He gave us to understand that as times improved the tariff would be reduced. I wonder why, when he goes to Toronto and Montreal, he does not make that same statement. I have watched to find out whether he has said the same thing in any other place, and I find that he has not. Surely it must have been the

The Address-Mr. McKenzie
environment of the city of AVinnipeg which was responsible for his statement. And again, in 1928 the environment of the city of Winnipeg must have been responsible for the fact that tariff protection and high tariffs were never mentioned at the Conservative convention held in that year.
In his address of last week the Prime Minister had something to say about a reciprocity agreement with the United States, and in connection therewith quoted some prices. He threw the question to members on this side of the house whether or not we wanted the farmers of western Canada to sell their products in the higher priced markets of this country. I, for one, have always believed that one of the worst blows which has befallen our western country was the defeat of reciprocity in 1911. I can assure the Prime Minister that if he will bring in a reasonable measure providing for reciprocal trade with the United States there will not be very much opposition from this side of the house. In his remarks he mentioned the prices of a number of commodities. I have now before me the prices of agricultural products which were quoted about a year and a half ago in the cities of Chicago and Winnipeg. In connection with them I now ask him the same question he put to us: Why is it that he did not endeavour to let us, the people of Canada, ship our goods in the higher priced markets of United States a year and a half ago? As a matter of fact, right to-day, although, as the right hon. gentleman mentioned, the hog market in Canada is very good, it can be of no benefit to those people who have no feed for their hogs and cannot fatten them for the market. He did not mention wool. Last year in my constituency wool was selling for from seven to nine cents per pound. A few days ago in Chicago it was quoted at thirty-four cents a pound. Surely that price would be of some benefit to the wool growers in western Canada.
Then, at page 2293 of Hansard for 1933 the Prime Minister stated that his party did not oppose reciprocity in natural products. If they did not then, why should they now, despite the fact that hogs happen to be a little higher priced in Canada than they are in the United States? If he will negotiate a treaty I do not believe the people of Canada will offer very much opposition. The people in the constituency from which I come-and I believe this statement applies to the rest of Canada-are anxious to secure markets; they want to trade with any country which will trade with us on a fair basis. I have often asked myself why the people of Canada and,
for that matter, also the people of the United States, persist in sending their goods and paying freight charges on products they are exporting to points four or five thousand miles away when each country has a market right at its door for a great deal of its natural products. Despite the high tariffs which have been placed against our goods by the United States and which we, in turn, have placed against their goods, the United States was still in the year 1933 our best customer. I have learned that- in that year we did a business valued at $383,000,000 with the United States, and about $100,000,000 worth less- $272,000,000-with Great Britain.
In the Winnipeg Free Press of May 3, 1933, there appeared an editorial dealing with the question of reciprocity which, I believe, reflects the opinion in western Canada. It speaks of a readiness, amounting actually to eagerness, of the United States government to make an agreement with Canada which will have the effect of enlarging the volume of trade between the two countries. In part the editorial is as follows:
The new democratic administration thoroughly realizes the havoc that has been made in the world by the competition between the nations in the raising of tariff wails and admits a measure of responsibility for this disastrous economic war. It will enter the world economic conference with a will to cooperate in an international movement looking to a substantial and progressive removal of trade restrictions. There is in evidence in Washington a disposition to be friendly and reasonable that, if met by Canada in the same spirit and with an equal readiness to act. might result in the United States and Canada going to the world economic conference in June not only with promises of cooperation but with an earnest of their good intentions in the form of an agreement between themselves for the substantial enlargement of trade between the two countries.
Then at another point the article continues:
The situation is not unlike' that of 1911. Then the United States government for domestic political purposes, was prepared to give Canada much the best of the bargain in order to ensure the making of an agreement; but the Canadian people rejected the opportunity in the belief that the American market for our natural products was of no real advantage to them. There is very good reason to believe that we now have a parallel situation. The United States administration, in order to make a good beginning in its program of tariff reductions, is in the mood to deal generously with a country which is its nearest neighbour and, on a per capita basis, its best customer.
I believe that editorial sets out exactly the views held by the people of western Canada and, largely, by the people in eastern Canada as well. On February 6, the hon. member for
The Address-Mr. McKenzie

Regina (Mr. Turnbull) speaking in this debate about my right hon. leader, had this to say:
The right hon. gentleman, standing on the platform one day in the summer at Estevan, made certain statements to this effect in an area where the people had lost four crops and the fifth was then being consumed by grasshoppers-the very area with respect to which, for six weeks in this house, he refused to consent to relief being afforded the farmers until the house was compelled to pass the measure by closure. Yet he stood on the platform there and said, "Had I been Prime Minister of Canada in the last three years you people would not be in the condition in which you are to-day." The contention was made throughout western Canada that the prices which the farmers have to pay for the things they buy are higher to-day than they were when the present government came into office. Let hon. gentlemen make no mistake about it; the farmers of western Canada know better than that.
I happened to 'be at Estevan when the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) delivered the address to which the hon. member for Regina referred. He did not make the statement, "Had I been Prime Minister of Canada in the last three years you people would not be in the condition in which you are to-day." Moreover, he did not, and the opposition in this house did not, hold the farmers out of their seed for six weeks, as the hon. member for Regina says, in the spring of 1832. The fact of the matter is that the wheat had been purchased and the government of the province had it; all they had to do was to distribute it, and it was actually 'being distributed at the time that debate was going on in this house. We all know that an attempt was made to make a little capital out of the fact that that debate was being carried on here. The premier of Saskatchewan wired to me, as well as to other members of this house,
I believe, asking us to press the legislation through as the farmers were waiting for their seed. I do not know what the others answered, but my answer was to the effect that if this government would bring down a proper measure there would be no delay in procuring the seed.	-
The hon. member for Regina also said that my right hon. leader tried to prove to the farmer that the prices which they have to paj-for the things they have to buy are higher to-day than they were when the present government came into office. What we have contended, and rightly so, as to the prices of agricultural implements-and that is what he was referring to-is that the prices of implements are being held up by the high tariffs put on by this government in spite of the fact that the cost of the raw materials and the 
price of labour is down. I remember hearing my right hon. leader discussing these matters. He did mention sugar, and I remember the cheer which went up from the big crowd at that meeting because they knew, as everyone knew, that the price of sugar was increased by reason of the tax put on by this government.
Whether the hon. member for Regina likes it or not, the people of my constituency and of the rural parts of the whole province of Saskatchewan do appreciate the fact that the leader of the Liberal party went right out into the rural areas of that province to find out at first hand the conditions under which the people there were living. He made observations for himself, and I believe it did the people out- there good to know that he was personally interested in their welfare. In the speech he made in the town of Estevan he did expound Liberal policies, but, Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that even the hon. member for Regina will appreciate, as the people of my constituency appreciated it, and that is the fact ithat my right- hon. leader talked business. He did say that the policies of this government, by high tariffs, had aggravated the conditions, but I know that in comparison with what the leader of the Conservative party said in 1830, the people were quite satisfied that my leader was not there to play politics. He did not, for instance, call his political opponents a bunch of mercenaries. Nor did he say: Put us into power and unemployment will vanish practically overnight. No, Mr. Speaker; he spoke without any particular bias and the people appreciated his remarks.
So far as western Canada is concerned, I believe that the Liberal policy as regards that section of the country is stronger in the mind of the Liberal leader to-day because of what he saw of the conditions there. We have heard the remark made on more than one occasion that the Liberal party has no policy, but what the leader of our party did in his tour throughout western Canada was to announce to the people just what the Liberal policy was, and the people appreciated the fact that we did have such a policy.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, although I have put forward the suggestion for an undertaking in my constituency, I cann-ot help but. say that I have some doubt as to the advisability of the government going further into debt even for a building program at this time. But if something can be done which will help to relieve the situation by the expenditure of money that will be devoted entirely to labour,

The Address-Mr. McIntosh
then I would be in favour of it, and that is why I advance the proposal I have made here to-night of a dam over the Souris river at Estevan. We .cannot afford to go further into debt in this country, because I believe that our debt is one of the main obstacles to the return of prosperity.
I have often wondered just what the historians of the future will say when they write the history of Canada during this period of depression. They can honestly say that in 1930 the whole world was in the midst of a very severe economic depression and that Canada, because of the fact that she was maintaining a comparatively low tariff as compared with other countries, was getting through the depression without feeling it to any great extent. Then a political party in this country went to the people promising that by the simple expedient of raising the tariff, as every other country was doing, they were going to lift Canada out of the depression, end unemployment, increase prices, put all our people to work, and change the economic situation entirely. By those promises they secured a mandate from the people, and immediately afterwards a session of parliament was called, at which money was voted freely for the construction of public works for the purposes of relief. That money was spent, and in spite of that fact the depression grew worse and unemployment increased by leaps and bounds. Later the government decided that it had been spending too much money for the benefits secured and inaugurated a program of direct relief. In the first year that relief was given quite freely, but it was found in the part of the country from which I come that the needy recipients received only a small part and the supervisors and those who did not particularly need it got a very large part of the relief. Relief is still being given to-day but it is being given in a most miserable fashion I know of families of four, five and six in my part of the country who are being forced to live on a very few dollars per month, hardly enough to eke out an existence. But still this same government remains in office, its high tariff policy remains in force and economic conditions become worse and worse. In 1930 the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) told us that he would do the things I have mentioned, or perish in the attempt. I believe Canada is ready to have him put on his perishing stunt. This is the feeling of the people I represent, and from the sentiments expressed here, I believe it is the feeling across the whole of Canada.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): Mr. Speaker, in continuing the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, may I say that I do not want to be poetical although-
I like to take part in a parliamentary debate, Particularly when it is not too late.
And it is not too late to take part in this debate. In taking part in it I should like to say something about the speech from the throne itself-that is the questions which grow out of it-and deal also with at least one grievance of the riding which I represent in this house.
Before going on to deal with some of the matters mentioned in the speech from the throne, may I refer in a historical way to the speech itself. The speech from the throne has its place and function in our parliamentary system of government and anything that has a place and function in our parliamentary system of government is worthy of the consideration of this house. According to modern parliamentary practice, the first duty of a prime minister or of his ministers, the first duty of a government in fact, is to write the speech from the throne and have it ready for parliament when it assembles. I was pleased the other day at the discussion which took place with regard to the position which the debate on the address should occupy, and particularly so when it was decided to change the procedure this year from that followed last year. Last year the debate on the address ran all over the order paper for days. A procedure of that kind militates against the discussion of certain constituency grievances which ought to be brought before parliament so that they can be remedied. The very fact that according to modern parliamentary practice the preparation of the speech from the throne is the first duty of a government is good reason why the discussion of that speech should be the first duty of parliament after it is read. There we have the very foundation of the Liberal contention that was made the other day. I believe the decision arrived at was sound and if that procedure is followed the debate will be better and after the debate is over the government will feel better for having taken such a common sense course.
In days gone bv the speech from the throne was divided into two parts. The king often wrote and read the speech himself; he came down to parliament and delivered it personally. He would then delegate one of his ministers, perhaps the lord chancellor, the lord treasurer or some other member of the government, to state to parliament why it had
The Address-Mr. McIntosh

been assembled. But with that statement, his duty ended. As far as a present-day speech from the throne is concerned, it is prepared by the prime minister, the parliamentary leader of the nation. It differs entirely from those delivered in past years. Were I to select from the speech delivered this year those parts which the king might state himself if he came down in person, or that his representative would reaily state, there would be two only. The first would be the following:
Since I have been associated with you as the representative of His Majesty in Canada, 1 have visited every province of the dominion. I have been greatly impressed by the loyalty, devotion and friendliness of the people, as well as the high courage with which men and women were meeting and overcoming abnormal difficulties in their d.aily lives.
That is one part which no doubt the king himself would state before parliament. The only other part which I can find in the speech that His Majesty would state is:
I invoke the divine blessing upon your deliberations, confident that the measures submitted for your consideration will receive your earnest attention.
The rest of the speech belongs especially to the government of the day. As I have shown, the King's part in the speech is simply to express his desires, sentiments, congratulations and compliments to the people. It would not be an address saturated with the spirit of high tariffs or protection or economic nationalism or imperialism. Those sentiments would be entirely free from a strictly throne speech. As I said before, so far as the government's part of the speech is concerned, it was all written by the Prime Minister. Thus every word of the major portion of the speech belongs especially to and deals entirely with the policies of the present government. Such a speech, therefore, should be the subject of free criticism in parliament. Since the speech is really the manifesto of the government or the Prime Minister it can be discussed with the usual licence of debate. Nothing should be mentioned in the speech which cannot be echoed in parliament. Therefore, there is every reason in the world why we should debate the speech conclusively and why that debate should follow immediately after the speech is read. .
The Prime Minister stated that we follow closely the procedure followed in the British parliament. AIL right. I understand the practice in the old land is for the Prime Minister to write the speech and then lay >t before his cabinet. I wonder whether any 
member of the present cabinet ever saw this strange speech before it was delivered in parliament. I am wondering if it is not entirely the product of the Prime Minister's brain and if any member of the cabinet knew what was in it before it was read to the house. The people of Canada are wondering the same thing. In Great Britain the custom is not only to Lay the speech before the members of the cabinet but also to lay it before the leading supporters of the government in both houses. I do not know whether the present speech was ever placed before the leading supporters of the government in the house of in the Senate, but I am of the opinion that this was not done and that it was largely if not entirely the handiwork of the Prime Minister, perhaps after submission to a few, but a limited few of the members of the cabinet and an equally limited number of supporters of the government in the upper house. But I do not think the supporters generally of the government were considered at all; they did not know what the speech contained until it was read in parliament. That is not British parliamentary practice.
With regard to the amendment before the house perhaps it should be. said, indeed it is important that it should be said, that any speech from the throne can be challenged by the opposition. One reason for this is that we never know when a government controls a majority in the House of Commons. That is one of the realistic attributes of our British constitution. We never know when a government may lose the confidence of the House of Commons, and whenever that happens the government must go to the country. In that respect our constitution is very elastic, and therefore one of the main objectives of any opposition-and certainly it is the objective of the present Liberal opposition-is to challenge the government by way of amendment to the speech. One of our main political objectives is to challenge the present government by this amendment in order to show the people of Canada that this government does not hold the confidence of the country. I do not know whether we shall attain the objective wre wish or not, but our desire is to drive the government as quickly as possible to the country in order that the people may decide just what party they wish to guide the affairs of state at the present time.
The speech from the throne touches certain points of national and international policy, and in debating these questions of policy the nation is given a lead, as it were, to the

The Address-Mr. McIntosh
larger questions that will be decided by parliament during the time it is in session. In the present speech from the throne, the first part deals with certain peculiar, fanciful statements. For instance, the statement is made that the world is gradually returning to economic stability and that Canada, as a part of the world, is returning to permanent prosperity. May I say that if Canada is returning to permanent prosperity, the idea that seems to be thrown out here is that it is largely because of the fact that the world as a whole is returning to economic stability, and that the policies of the present government are really not having any effect in restoring permanent prosperity to this country. It is the policies, the leadership and the drive to action that have taken place outside Canada which are largely responsible for the improvement in conditions, if they are improving, in this dominion at the present time. In so far as the first paragraph in the speech from the throne is concerned, it might have been written in a more masterly manner, for when we analyze it closely we find that its wording is not very favourable to the government.	.
Next we come to the part that deals with the trade treaties of 1932, and the assertion is made that empire trade is increasing; and thrown in with that idea is the statement of the fact that Canada occupies fifth position among the trading nations of the world. Well, it is a fact that Canada occupies fifth position in total world trade among the great nations, but I would point out that Canada occupied that position many years ago, and when she did occupy that position at that time she had some trade worth talking about. The fact that Canada occupies fifth position iu total world trade at the present time, when she has the limited total of a little over nine hundred million dollars, is not worthy of very much comment; it does not mean much to Canada, undeT these circumstances, whether she occupies fifth or sixth place. What we want is an increase in trade, both internal and external, and not until we get that shall we have that prosperity which we desire. I have here the annual report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the present year, and I find that Canada a year ago did not occupy fifth position. She has attained that position in the last nine months. This report says she occupied a year ago the seventh place. That was the .position she occupied in 1932 and in 1931 in total world trade. In regard to total imports, in 1931 she occupied eighth place and in 1032 ninth place. In total domestic exports, in 1931 she occupied seventh
place, and during the last year she occupied fifth place. Therefore, putting total imports and exports together, and allowing for the increase in trade in the last nine months, we have the statement that to-day Canada occupies fifth position among the great trading nations of the world. WTe are glad that this is so, but we are sorry that although she occupies fifth place we have only a little over nine hundred million dollars of total trade. What was the situation under Liberal rule in 1929? At that time, it is true, there was no depression. because as a matter of fact there are no depressions under Liberal government. Liberals have the urge to build up international business and freer trade, both internally and externally, so that depressions are obviated. Rather, prosperity is brought about because prosperity can come about only through individual and collective commercial liberty among the people making up the nation.
I might go on to some of the other portions of the speech from the throne. For instance, in one paragraph the statement is made that the government is going to increase price levels. Hon, gentlemen opposite admit that agricultural prices are not satisfactory, so they are going to give a lift to price levels. The main thing, I would point out, is not an increase in price levels; we can have prosperity under any price level, provided it is not too low. It is not the price level that is wrong with agriculture in this country; it is the fact that the prices are inequitable. What the people complain about is inequality in agricultural prices. The question is, what can you buy with a bushel of wheat or a bushel of turnips or ten bushels of rye or with a bullock or with so many hogs? That is what concerns the farmers of Canada, and unless a party and a policy will place prosperity on a different level, unless a party and a policy will bring about fair prices and a return to those conditions under which the farmer could buy what he should be able to buy with his wheat and cattle, hogs, barley and rye, then we shall not make much progress towards making this dominion the great commercial nation it ought to be.
Then we come to another paragraph in the speech from the throne wherein something is said about the London economic and monetary conference. The statement is made that we are going to have important legislation, including provision for a central bank, brought down. The idea of a central bank was mooted by the Brussels international financial conference, in 1920; it was again mooted by the international financial

The Address-Mr. McIntosh
conference at. Genoa in 1922, and both those great international financial conferences decided that a nation which had not a central bank ought to have one. The Liberal party has been to the fore with regard to the establishment of a central bank; in fact, one of its important planks is in connection with such a bank. May I read the plank of the Liberal party on this very important monetary institution?
The Liberal party believes that credit is a public matter, not of interest to bankers only, but of direct concern to the average citizen. It stands for the immediate establishment of a properly constituted national central bank, to perform the functions of rediscount, and the control of currency issue, considered in terms of public need. A central bank is necessary to determine the supply of currency in relation to the domestic, social and industrial requirements of the Canadian people; and also to deal with problems of international commerce and exchange.
That is the stand of the Liberal party with regard to a central bank, and our position to-day is that we want that bank to be publicly owned and the very best management that can be got in Canada to direct it. When the legislation is brought down we shall soon announce our policy with regard to every detail of it.
The speech from the throne deals with the wheat agreement that will be brought down later. The wheat agreement as it was explained by the Prime Minister and as it has been described by the press of Canada is simply a method of destroying wealth, and to the extent that it is a method of wealth destruction, the Liberal party is opposed to it. There can be no agreement on a policy that will destroy wealth rather than produce and distribute it. Because of this limitation this wheat agreement will be of no benefit to Canada. I do not believe any prime minister or government through such a policy can convince the people of Canada that the proper method to pursue at the present time is to retard our wheat production by fifteen per cent; or, in other words, destroy production, eliminate wealth, leave the tariff structure as it now is attempt to figure out how in some mysterious way by following a policy of that kind Canada can be made prosperous.
What we want is trade within and without Canada. We want an opportunity for this country to exchange in a fair way the products that it can economically produce with those of other countries that they can economically produce. When that situation is . brought about, we shall have a flow of trade between one country and another, not restricted by tariffs, not stifled by one interference or an-
other, but with a freedom that will bring about the movement of trade within and without the nation. That is what Canada requires at the present moment and under a Liberal government, when our party comes into power-and that will not be long-we shall have a policy of that kind adopted to restore prosperity to the country.
Another item in the speech from the throne deals with offering securities in the British market. The government is taking credit for the fact that we sold securities there amounting to about $75,000,000. I am glad that we were able to float a loan in the British market and that we obtained that money, because we need it very badly. We have obtained a vast amount of money from the British people; they have always money to lend. But what did we have to pay for that money? Our dollar was then worth about sixty or sixty-three cents in gold and we are borrowing those millions in Canadian dollars, but when we have to pay them back we shall more than likely have to do so-not at sixty or sixty-three cents-but at 100 cents on the dollar. It will thus be seen that the bargain was a good one for the British and that is shown by the fact that the loan was oversubscribed four times. Such a result is not surprising because it is only what we might expect.
In the remaining parts of the speech from the throne certain statements are made about agricultural short term and intermediate credits. Legislation dealing with this matter should be proceeded with without delay. Certainly what the farmers need is short term and intermediate credits, and the opposition will give tihe government all possible support in prosecuting the necessary inquiry and in forwarding legislation to make such credits available.
Further, some reference is made to the relief act, to the financing of the western provinces, to a program of public works, and to the' policy of the government with regard to the single unemployed men. As regards the program of public works about which the government is talking so much and about which we have heard so much in the house, when you are spending a large amount of money for constructing public works here and there throughout Canada, you are practically bringing about a condition of affairs under which any unscrupulous party can go to work on election day and by a mass expenditure of public money bringing about mass voting. Does any hon. member want to have in his riding a mass expenditure of public money and then, based on that, mass voting, or, in other words,

Privilege-Mr. Neill
mass voting to support as far as possible, the government of the day and to put out of business every Liberal or opposition member who dared to criticize the policy of the government? Such a procedure would bring us back to the time of the war when in constituency after constituency it was impossible for the people to elect the representatives that they desired, but where mass voting overseas controlled the election and put into power the Union government which placed upon the country during the war a debt of nearly 82,000,000,000 which is to-day breaking Canada down financially.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, February 9, 1934