1934-02-09

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 9, to incorporate The Bishop of the Arctic.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 10, respecting a certain patent owned by The Firth-Brearley Stainless Steel Syndicate Limited.-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg).
FLOOD AT VAUDREUIL SOULANGES On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOSEPH THAUVETTE (Vaudreuil-Soulanges) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I
wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau). I have received communications from Vaudreuil to the effect that a considerable flood has occurred along the Ottawa river in the parishes of St. Michel de Vaudreuil and Ste. Jeanne-de-Chantel, Perrot island. A large number of people have had to leave their homes, and farmer's flocks should be transferred elsewhere. I request the hon. Minister of Marine, to send, without further delay, engineers from his department to relieve the situation brought on by the accumulation of ice on the lake at Pointe Cascades. This flood is spreading and will be the cause of considerable losses in that district. I therefore beg the hon. minister to send engineers to that district without further delay.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) (Translation):: I have noted the statement of the hon. member and I shall take steps to relieve, as soon as possible, the situation caused by this flood.



MILK INQUIRY REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. F. CA8GRAIN (Charlevoix-Sague-nay): On May 16 last I directed a question to the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) with reference to the Agriculture Committee's report on the milk inquiry, and the answer at that time was, "The report will be reviewed, and of course if action is necessary it will be taken." I do not see the Minister of Labour in his seat but in his absence perhaps the right hon. the Prime Minister would be able to say if that report has yet been reviewed, and if any action is contemplated in the matter.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: The hon. gentleman s question will stand as a notice.



PRIVILEGE-MR. NEILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege, one which I think concerns the rights of every member of this house. Yesterday, under the authority of standing order 44, rule 339, I addressed three questions to the hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Matthews). The record will be found at page 368 of yesterday's Hansard, at the foot of the page. I asked: What was the tonnage of coal imported into British Columbia from the United Kingdom during the calendar year 1933?
The minister replied that it was 22,500 tons. I also asked what regular duty had been paid on that, and he told me 86,749.50. I asked him what dumping duty had been paid on that importation, and he did not give the answer. His explanation was as follows:
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.
I respectfully submit, sir, that that is not correct. In the first place, the consignment was not a single one but a number, and comprised a large quantity, 22,000 tons of coal, which would represent in car lots, 1,100 car-

Privilege-M r. Neill
loads. It was not one consignment but was scattered over the whole year. It was not simply from one concern; it was from more than one. Moreover, the information I asked for would have revealed nothing whatever about the importers' private business. Had the minister replied that a dumping duty of three or four dollars a ton had been collected, it would not have revealed anything about the amount paid for the coal in the country of origin, or the price got for the coal when exported-


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman has
had an answer to his question.


Alan Webster Neill: I have not.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is not in order to
discuss it. There is no motion before the house. The question has been asked and answered, and if the hon. member wants further information he can ask further questions, but it is not in order to proceed in this way.


Alan Webster Neill: I cannot ask further questions dealing with a matter already on the order paper. I am asking the minister if he will bring down that information.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I call the hon. member
to order.


Alan Webster Neill: If I am not to be allowed
to state a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, then I appeal from your ruling that I cannot do so.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: State it at the proper
time, but not now.


Alan Webster Neill: I appeal from your ruling,
Mr. Speaker, that I am not to be allowed to state a question of privilege.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is no such ruing.


Mr. RALSTON:: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is not to be allowed on the orders of the day for a member to call the attention of the ministry to the fact that a question has not been answered? That is a matter which affects the privilege of all the members of this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He has already done
that.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman may understand that or not, but it is not correct.


James Layton Ralston: I understood that it was
correct. I noticed the answer in Hansard and I respectfully submit that the ministry should take the matter into consideration because it affects the privileges of every member of the 
house. We surely are entitled to information in regard to the dumping of coal at a particular port. Whether particular cases are to be included is another matter.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Comox-Alberni has directed attention to the fact that the answer is not responsive to his question and is not ample for his purposes. Having done that, the matter will be considered by the government and such action taken as may be necessary in accordance with the rules.


James Layton Ralston: That indicates that no
answer will be given beyond what has been given.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Comox-Alberni has directed attention to the fact that the answer w'as not adequate.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: May I suggest to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) that if the government takes this stand as a matter of government or public policy, then the remedy may be exhausted, 'but that has not been stated. I think this affects the privileges of every single member of this house 'because anyone is entitled to information having regard to special or regular duties. No minister, either properly or improperly-we are not discussing that phase at the moment-can refuse to include special duties. If this is a matter of public policy and it is so stated, perhaps we may not be entitled to the information, but I think any member is entitled to ask the government if this is to be a matter of public policy.


James Layton Ralston: If I might be permitted to make reference to the point raised by my hon. friend. In connection with this matter of public policy there have been recent decisions, as the Prime Minister knows, questioning the right of a minister to declare .that as a matter of public policy a certain paper or document is not obtainable. Even the records of Scotland Yard-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was the decision of a court.


James Layton Ralston: But this is even stronger, this is the court of parliament. Even the records of Scotland Yard have been regarded as not being absolutely immune to production.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At the risk of trespassing upon the time of the house I would point out the fact that on the orders of the day being called the hon. member for Comox-Alberni was very properly within his rights when he

The Address-Mr. McIntosh
directed attention to the fact that an answer given to a question asked yesterday indicated that the minister regarded it as an improper exercise of knowledge to give details with respect to individuals. When the hon. member had directed attention to that foot he had served his purpose unless he desired >to move a motion of censure which is always within the rights of any hon. member. Attention having been directed to the fact, the government will now give consideration to the matter. My own personal view at -the moment is that if more than one person is -concerned the information should be made available, 'but if only one is concerned, then it would be an improper exercise of power.


James Layton Ralston: Not necessarily.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps not necessarily, but that should be the general rule. I shall look into it and a statement will be made. In connection with the Scotland Yard case, I should like to say that it was a judge of a court of law and not the court of parliament tha-t determined that, certain papers should be produced. The case is under appeal at the moment to decide whether or not the observations made by Mr. Justice Macnaghten the trial judge, were correct. I can-not see that this case has any particular application to the present instance. If the administration does not discharge its duties by affording information -to the extent that a questioner may think desirable, the questioner may then move a motion of censure of the administration. I think I can point ou-t instances where this has been done in Great Britain and I recall one case in this parliament. About twenty years ago the session was prolonged considerably, the house sitting all night in fact, because certain information was not forthcoming from the government of the day to questions asked by members of the then opposition. The question raised by the hon. member for Comox-Atbemi will be considered and the position of the government with respect to it indicated on Monday next.


Alan Webster Neill: I am quite willing to accept the statement of the Prime Minister and I thank him for his courtesy. A little courtesy from the chair would have shortened this debate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think in fairness to this house and upon consideration the hon. member will withdraw that statement. I put it to him if it is not desirable that he should.


Alan Webster Neill: In deference to the Prime
Minister's request, I withdraw my statement.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 7, 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. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker, when the house
rose last evening at eleven o'clock I had concluded my remarks in connection with the various portions of the subject matter making up the speech from the throne. I have not the time to summarize the statements I made last evening but shall go on to deal with the mover (Mr. Gobeil) and the seconder (Mr. Barber) of the address. I congratulate both speakers upon the contributions they have made to the debate on the address. The hon. member for Compton, who moved the address, made the following statement with reference to himself:
... a representative of a constituency which in 1930 elected its member to carry out the policy of our illustrious leader of whom we are so proud.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I am glad hon. members opposite say "Hear, hear." I would not think very much of members of any party who did not back up their leader. However, the point I intend to make is that the statement of the hon. member is to the effect that the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite is the policy of their illustrious leader. It is not the policy of the cabinet, it is not the policy of the party; it is the policy of one man upon whom they look as the political Moses of the dominion. I hope the time will soon come when hon. gentlemen opposite will have a party and not a one-man policy, a policy in which every member of the Conservative party from ocean to ocean can take part. When that time arrives they will be able to make a more satisfactory contribution to the upbuilding of Canada.
The hon. member then went on to say that in his and other parishes in Quebec they have that racial and bilingual harmony which goes to make a great province. May I suggest to the hon. gentleman that when he gets through giving testimony of that kind with regard to Compton he should go beyond the borders of Quebec, he should go east and west all over Caqada and try to repair the damage deliberately done in 1930 by the racial and religious
The Address-Mr. McIntosh

disharmony preached by his leader and every member of his party. It is because of this that hon. gentlemen opposite are to-day sitting to the right of Your Honour.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I must
rise to a point of order. The observations made by the hon. gentleman are calculated to accentuate the difficulties to which he sometimes refers. On behalf of myself and others I desire emphatically to deny the statement just made. It should be withdrawn.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I accept the statement
of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) but my opinion is practically the same-unaltered.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman's
opinions are things to which he can refer anywhere but in this house he is bound by certain rules. IV ithin the house his opinion is what he saJ's and I submit that the charge made directly against myself and other members of this party as to racial differences in this country is something that should not be permitted to remain uncontradicted and unchallenged. The statement is entirely unwarranted and I ask that it be withdrawn in toto.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am glad the Prime
Minister denies it. It was worth while making the statement if only to have the emphatic denial of the Prime Minister,-he could not as one member of the party, subscribe to it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I have withdrawn.


An hon. MEMBER:: No, you haven't.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes, I have. I have
accepted his statement on the Prime Minister's assurance that it is not true so far as he is concerned, and I conclude my remark with the hope that not only the hon. member for Compton but every other hon. gentleman belonging to the party opposite will stand by the statement made by the Prime Minister in parliament to-day. If they do, and do not carry racial hatreds into effect on election day on future occasions, we shall certainly have a more harmonious dominion, something which we all devoutly desire.
I come now to the remarks made by the seconder of the address, the hon. member for Fraser Valley. That hon. gentleman made the statement that our economic destiny is bound up with that of our neighbouring nation, the United States. I believe that is to a large extent true, but I would parallel with that the statement made by the Prime
TMr. McIntosh.]
Minister in his speech on the address in this house on January 30, when he said:
The principal fall in our external trade has been with the United States of America, and the reason for it-if the reasoning of the right hon. gentleman is to be applied at all-is to be found in what he said yesterday.
That is to say, the reason is to be found in the high tariff structure existing between Canada and the United States. Now, here we have the seconder of the address practically advocating reciprocity with the United States, while the Prime Minister happily tells us that because of the high tariff structure our trade with the United States has gone down in recent years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What he said was that
the high tariff rates imposed by the United States had prevented our selling goods in their markets.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I understand what the
Prime Minister is trying so hard to explain; I accept his statement in that regard. But the fact is that while the United States contributed to the building up of that tariff structure we played our part too, in the reciprocity election of 1911, and since, in erecting this almost prohibitive tariff wall. There is consequently much blame attaching to this government as well as to the United States. I am not placing all the blame on the United States, nor am I blaming this government entirely, because there is a joint blame in this matter, and hope for the future lies in the gradual demolition by the Liberals of this tariff structure, with consequent reciprocity between the two countries in imports and exports. That is all the time I have at my disposal for the discussion of this particular question.
I come now to railways, which is a very important matter in so far as the constituency of North Battleford is concerned. Development in Canadian railway facilities during the last fifteen or twenty years has been remarkable. In 1913 the Canadian railways carried approximately twenty-three billion tons of freight one mile; in 1928 they carried approximately forty-one billion tons of freight one mile; in 1930 they carried approximately 29 billion tons of freight one mile; and in 1931 they carried approximately 25 billion tons of freight one mile.
In 1913 the freight carried one mile per mile of line was approximately 800,000 tons, and in 1928 it was well over a billion tons. What does this mean? It means that there has been an increase of 80 per cent in the

The Address-Mr. McIntosh
freight movement between 1913 and 1928. And how did that take place? It was due to the increased technical and mechanical efficiency; heavier ballast; heavier rails; larger cars; more powerful engines; more efficient operation; greater speed of trains by approximately 25 per cent; the increase in the average trainload during the years from 300 to 500 tons; and lastly, it was due to the larger number of tons per load on every car, which was increased from practically 19 to 25.
In so far as the dominion railway problem is concerned, what we need is tonnage. We need freight; we need business, and the only way to get the railways on a sound foundation is to get trade and business and tonnage. How will we do that? We can do it only by paying attention to certain fundamental facts, some of which are to be found in the present policy of the Liberal party. One of those planks is the abolition of unemployment. Another plank in the Liberal program is to liberate external trade, and that can be done only by trading with as many nations as possible, negotiating treaties with countries willing to trade with us on a reciprocal basis; by abolishing the extravagant increases in tariff; by abolishing all unwarranted extra taxes; by substituting stability for uncertainty; by continuing the Liberal policy of the British preference; and by a percentage reduction in existing tariffs rather than a percentage increase against foreign countries in those tariffs. Next we have to liberate internal trade by putting an end to artificial price control and agreements in restraint of trade, and eliminating price fixing in connection with agreements that tend to restrict and hamper trade internally. Internal trade has become honeycombed, enmeshed by secret understandings and agreements. Liberals also firmly believe we can develop trade by putting into every industry the spirit of democracy and by playing fair with both railways.
In connection with railway facilities, I have received from the riding of North Battleford a petition containing practically five hundred names, asking for better rail facilities in the upper end of northwestern Saskatchewan. In that area there are practically ten thousand new settlers, largely from the southern districts. Many of them are on relief. They have no railway facilities. There is a line running from St. Walburg about one hundred miles from North Battleford to Edmonton. A stretch of about forty miles remains to be graded, but the contractor was taken off his job years ago and that stretch of country 74726-27
is left untouched-not railroaded. About seventy miles have been graded and the ties are decaying by the roadside, but no steeling has been done. May I ask the government of this country to-day, the Minister of Railways, and all those who have to do with railway development and construction in this country to take this petition into serious consideration and at the earliest opportunity give these ten thousand settlers the railway facilities they deserve. The petition is directed to the minister of Railways and reads as follows-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think there is a rule
with respect to the reading of petitions. This was tried once before. Petitions can be presented in a certain way. They are not to be read but referred to, and in a speech an hon. member cannot circumvent the rule by reading a petition.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: If the Prime Minister
objects-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The rules of the house
object.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: And the Prime Minister deliberately follows up the objection; is that right?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; I am for the
moment custodian of the rules.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am custodian of the
rules too, and I will try to abide by them. May I say then that the petition is from Loon Lake and other areas known as St. Walburg, Red Cross, Makwa, Loon River, Flat Valley, Good Soil and Beacon Hill. In these districts, as I say, there is a population of about ten thousand brave and determined souls. They are miles from any railway, situated in a productive mixed farming area, and my request to the government is that they give this petition their earnest consideration, in the hope that something will be done in the near future to provide these splendid people with the railway facilities they require to develop that district, to build up northern Saskatchewan, and to develop tonnage as well for the Canadian National Railways. So far as that area is concerned, besides the seventy miles of Canadian National steel required, and the forty miles or more of Canadian National grading that has to be done, the Canadian Pacific is building eastward from Meadow Lake towards Loon Lake and Makwa. The line is being extended westward into Alberta. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company a

The Address-Mr. McIntosh


Richard Bedford Bennett: I must interrupt the hon. gentleman, I was speaking about the export of hams.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I always thought that
hams were part of the hog.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Hams are not
bacon.


James J. Donnelly: 
An hon. MEMBER:: What about the tariff?


James J. Donnelly: Yes we have a tariff,
and how does it help us? We have a 30 cents a bushel tariff; that is the reason we are getting so good a price! We will take it off,, it is not going to be long either, as soon as-we go to the people. In my constituency they,
The Address-Mr. Donnelly

have appointed an undertaker for the relief officer. But continuing the comparison of commodity prices:
Prices in cents
Chi cago	W innipeg
Butter, lb. . . . 26 to 274	23J
Turkeys, lb. ...	10	to	15	7	to	11Chickens, lb. . .	94 to 14	9 to 15Geese, lb	10	7Bucks, lb	
11	to	14	9Eggs, doz	
17	to	204	14	to	25Potatoes, cwt.	.	175	to	200	73
We have one cent edge on chickens, but there is an explanation of that; the United States being a warmer country they come on the market earlier. For eggs, the present price in the United States is the same as ours will be in three months, for the same reason, eggs coming from the southern states make the price in Chicago lower at the present time.
These, Mr. Speaker, are some of the prices for commodities which the farmers produce in western Canada, showing conclusively that the farmers across the line get a better price for everything that they produce. Therefore
Price
Article	1930
14-inch John Deere gang plough
with 4-horse eveners	 $ 149 00
Five-section diamond harrow complete with 1-pieee pulley hitch
drawbar	 33	90
Eight-foot outthrow Bissell disc
harrow with	4-horse eveners..	72	00
No. 241-7-foot 9-tooth field cultivator, stiff tooth, with 4-horse
steel eveners	 113	50
Model "C" manure spreader with
4-horse steel eveners	 204	00
2-size Van Brunt drill with double
disc ops	
249	5025-42 Goodison all steel separator complete with feeder, blower and perfection weigher and register	
1,530	00


Mr. TURNBULL:: Will the hon. gentleman permit an interruption? Will he deal with the 16 foot John Deere combine, 50 per cent reduction?


James J. Donnelly: That is a new combine put into the field. I am dealing with someone a little bigger than you are. When I am out on a big game hunt I have no time to stop to skin a skunk.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would ask the hon.
gentleman to withdraw the words he has just used. He said when he was out on a big game hunt he had no time to stop to skin a shimk. I think that is entirely improper, and I would ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw it.

farmers in the United States ought to be better off. But, some hon. gentlemen will say, look at the cost of production. But I say that the cost of production across the line is a lot less than it is with us. The price of machinery across the line is 20 to 25 per cent less than it is in Canada. The hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) the other night referred to prices of machinery. I will take his own figures. Of the seven pieces of machinery he referred to only one has no duty, that is the John Deere tractor, therefore the reduction in the price of that was on account of the lower costs of raw material and labour. IWere it not for the tariff we should have the same percentage of reduction on every other piece of machinery. But what do we find? The John Deere tractor the hon. member says sold in 1930 for SI.170 and in 1933 for $940, a reduction of $230, or 19| per cent. Prices of every other piece of machinery should also have been reduced 194 per cent. On that basis
what do we	find? I	quoted	the prices ofimplements in	1930 and 1933 as	follows:Proportionate	Price	Keduc-	Red uc-	Resultant1933	tion	tion	price$ 136 50	$12 50	$29 05	$ 119 9533 90	6 61	27 2968 00	4 00	14 04	57 96108 50	5 00	22 13	91 37198 00	6 00	39 78	164 22212 50	37 00	48 65	200 851,470 00	60 00	298 35	1,231 65


James J. Donnelly: To whom is Your Honour referring?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am referring to the hon. gentleman, who said that when he was on a big game hunt he had no time to stop to skin a skunk. I do not think that is parliamentary language.


James J. Donnelly: What do you want me
to say, a pussy cat?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think the hon. gentleman understands what is parliamentary language and what is not. I would ask him to withdraw those words.


James J. Donnelly: all they gave a five cent bonus, but I do not want to refer to that at all; that is a dark page in their history. We received no benefit; we had to pay more for our flour and seed as a result. Then they stepped into the market and put in John I. McFarland to gamble in wheat. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) said he was only buying futures and hedges and options, and that this was not gambling but legitimate business. Why, Mr. Speaker, there are only two kinds of people on the market who buy futures or hedges; they are the men- who intend to take the wheat and the men who go in there to gamble. Does Mr. McFarland intend to take the wheat? The Minister of Trade and Commerce knows very well that he does not. It is gambling in wheat; that is absolutely all there is to it. In 1930 Mr. McFarland was put in there to sell the carryover of the pool, when it appeared that the pool would become insolvent. They asked the government to help them financially, and what did the government say? They replied, "Yes, we will do so if you put in a satisfactory man to act as receiver." They were asked whom they wanted, and the government said, "Well, there are John I. McFarland, Mr. Brownlee and others," and they decided on Mr. McFarland. Then when I asked the minister in the spring of 1932, about two years ago, if Mr. McFarland was buying options, futures and so on, the minister replied that Mr. McFarland had not bought a bushel of wheat, so far as he knew. Six months later, however, the Prime Minister rose in his place and told us that Mr. McFarland had been buying wheat since 1930. Whom are we to believe? What does the Minister of Trade and Commerce say? I want to read this because it is a gem. I am quoting from page 2083 of Hansard of 1932 where I find this:
Mr. Stevens:	Mr. John McFarland, of
course, is independent of parliament and of the government.
Independent of parliament and of the government! Gambling in wheat with the public money and not responsible to anybody! Can you think of anything worse than that? Seventy-seven million bushels given to him to sell, and he told us last year he had not sold a bushel-not one bushel. He said he had 140,000,000 bushels approximately, and to-day I am told he has between 150,000,000 and 200,000,000, and even though we have a better exchange rate with England that he stands to lose from $25,000,000 to $30,000,000, and they do not want to tell us anything about that. Should we not have an investiga-

tion into this, Mr. Speaker? The Minister of Trade and Commerce talks of the unethical methods of chain stores and departmental stores and says they ought to be investigated. I say that we ought to investigate some of his unethical methods of gambling in wheat.
Then the Prime Minister goes to Toronto and stands up and tells the Toronto board of trade this:
Already there were signs of men moving to get back into the stock market in the hope of recouping the losses they suffered in 1929 and 1930. A return to the reckless speculation of the pre-depression days would only bring a repetition of the heartbreaks and sorrows of the past few years, he warned.
He went on:
This government will endeavour to do all in its power to prevent that.
Yet he himself is doing that very thing. Where is the difference between gambling in wheat and gambling in stocks? Let him take a little of his own medicine. Is it because he knew he was losing so much money in the grain market that he advised his hearers not to go into the stock market? Probably he got his fingers burned. Do as I say, not as I do, he says.
Where does the money come from, Mr. Speaker, for this gambling in wheat? We are told that it was put through under that item known as Unemployment and Farm relief. Taking the public's money to gamble in wheat-


William Richard Motherwell: Under peace, order and good government.


James J. Donnelly: Yes. Taking the public's money and starting out to gamble in wheat, and then we cannot get any accounting of these transactions. I think we should have an investigation into the whole thing. We want an investigation into this. We want an accounting of every bushel he has bought and of every dollar he has spent from day to day and week to week. The public are demanding it, and they will not be satisfied until there is an accounting.
One thing more. They started in here lately with another proposition, and the Prime Minister gets up and tells this house last year-I am quoting from Hansard:
It means that two ships lying side by side along the quay in one of the ports of old England, one from Canada and the other from another country, the ship from the other country will not be permitted to unload until six cents per bushel has been paid on her cargo, while the ship from Canada is permitted to unload without the payment of a single cent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.

The Address-Mr. Donnelly


James J. Donnelly: for the new stock. Cash applications were also invited at the same price to make up any Balance that may not be converted, but the cash lists were closed at 11.25 a.m. on the day they were opened; the conversion lists will remain open until Monday next. Enormous improvement has taken place in Australia's finances since the reforms introduced by the present national government, and her economic position is also much better.
Australian bonds due in 1946 paying only three and three-quarters per cent were selling for 99 while Canadian bonds due in 1945 paying four cent were selling at only 96.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	Mr. Speaker, although the well
drafted speeches of the hon. gentlemen who moved and seconded the address have not yet convinced the member for Temiscouata of the soundness of their arguments, let me congratulate them very sincerely upon the correctness of their language. I am sorry that I cannot pay the same compliment to the one who was responsible for the abominable French translation of the speech from the throne. On February 6 I asked a question of the government, as appears on page 301 of Hansard. My question was as follows: May I ask if the government is aware that the French version of the speech from the throne published on January 25, 1934, in an extra of the Canada Gazette, in the Hansard of both houses of parliament and the French dailies, is stuffed with grammatical errors, translation mistakes, nonsense, misconstructions, wrong interpretations, inaccuracies and blunders of all kinds, totalling three score and over.
I was then told by Mr. Speaker to put the question on the order paper. Although I sent a copy to the assistant clerk before six o'clock of that day, it has not as yet appeared upon the order paper. My complete question will include also the following:
2.	Is it the intention of the government to ascertain whether the published French version of this most solemn document of the session reflects on:
(a)	His Excellency the Governor General upon whom has been imposed the task of delivering it in his own name;
(b)	Canadian parliament which under the constitution is bound to give the same consideration to the French as well as to the English language;
(c)	French speaking members of both houses of parliament;
(d)	the whole Canadian community of French origin; and
(e)	the various staffs of official translators?
3.	In the event of that being the case, is it the intention of the government to have the French -translation of the speech from the throne struck out from the said official publications and a proper French version substituted thereto?
I should like to mention one gross mistake which was made not only in construction but

in constitutional law. The first three words put into the mouth of His Excellency by the government are "you are summoned." These are translated into French as "Je vous reunis." Upon page 1225 of the Canada Gazette of December 16 appears the proclamation for the convening of the house. This is signed, not by His Excellency -but by Mr. Coleman, Under Secretary of State. The houses of 'parliament were summoned not by His Excellency, but by the government with the assent of His -Excellency, which is altogether different. In fact, it was not His Excellency who summoned parliament for this session. Time does not permit of my going into the details of this matter. I have brought to the attention of the house the first mistakes which have been made both in the French translation and constitutional law. This proclamation notifying hon. members of the opening of this session is preceded by forty-two notices of bankruptcy but the greatest bankruptcy of all, that which has occurred in the government policy, is not mentioned as such.
Several meetings have been held in the province of Quebec at which were present the three French-speaking ministers with their Tory supporters within the province. One of the favourite arguments put forth is that the members of the opposition have been deliberately wasting the time of the house without offering a single constructive policy to the government.
The speech from the throne contains a paragraph relating to economy which reads:
The accounts of last year will be laid before yo-u. The estimates for the coming year will be submitted at an early date. They have been prepared with a regard for rigid' economy consistent with the requirements of the public service.
I direct -the attention of -the house to Hansard of February 7 of last year -and I hope to have -an opportunity of quoting some of the remarks made by my genial friend, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). In the speech of that day of the hon. member for Temiscouata there is the following:-
First of all, there are eight vacancies in the Senate. The government have a majority in the Sen-ate, and they are sure to carry their legislation through that body, whenever they think fit. What is the necessity of spending $32,000 per annum in order to fill those vacancies? The government could wait until a time immediately preceding the next general elections, whether they take place this year or next. If they take place this year the government would save $32,000, and if next year, $64,000.
Last year the vacancies in the Senate numbered eight and the saving in salaries was $32,000 less ten per cent, a net saving of

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
$28,800. I congratulate the government upon having accepted a suggestion from the humble member from Tamiscouata. In 1933 the number of vacancies to,tailed fifteen and if the same policy had been followed it would have meant an additional saving of $60,000, less ten per cent, or $54,000 for this session and $82,800, for the two years. On December 30, 1933, seven senators were appointed. Why were these appointments made? Was it because three new Liberal members were to be introduced by the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) at the first sitting of this house while the government had no newly elected members to introduce? Was it the intention of the government to counterbalance the publicity attending the introduction of three newly elected Liberal members to the house by the appointment of twice as many senators plus one, while there was no urgent necessity for such appointments and while the strictest economy is being preached by the government itself in the speech from the throne.
Another Tory slogan of last summer in the province of Quebec was this:	It was said
by Tory speakers, "At the next election you will have to choose between order, represented by the Prime Minister and his government, and disorder, represented by the C.C.F." The Prime Minister was spoken of as orderly and the C.CjF. and the hon. gentlemen to my left were described as disorderly. I have in my hand some political propaganda which was widely distributed in the Restigouche-Madawaska election. It is rather a screen, and at a joint meeting I showed it to the Tory candidate and told him that if it was a screen it was not wide enough to hide his face and his feet. Here is the quotation, first as it appeared in French:
Un vote pour M. Paul Dube-
He was the Conservative candidate.
-est un vote pour la paix, l'ordre et la prosperite. C'est un vote pour le bon gouverne-ment. II vaut done mieux etre sur le bon cote, celui de la justice, du droit et du maintien de nos traditions.
The translation reads:
A vote for Mr. Paul Dube is a vote for peace, order and prosperity. It is a vote for good government. It is better to be on the right side, that of justice, right and the maintenance of our traditions.
And how was it explained? It was explained by Mr. Dave Stewart, Tory provincial Minister of Public Works in New Brunswick, whom I met at the meeting. I was astounded at what he said. He said, " If you
do not vote for the federal Conservative candidate you will get nothing from the provincial government for your roads." It was enough to disqualify that gentleman politically.


Mr. YENIOT:: He will be disqualified in
the next election.


Mr. POULIOT:: I told the people then
that Mr. Stewart was using the same language as the devil used speaking to Our Lord after He had fasted forty days. The devil showed Him wonderful plains, rich cities, and said to Him, " Kneel before me and I will give it all to you." That was the sort of language used by the Tory minister of New Brunswick -" Kneel before me and I will give you anything you ask." I told that Tory provincial minister that the answer of the electors would be the same as that given by Our Lord to the devil-" Do not tempt Me; vade retro, Satanas."


An hon. MEMBER:: The Tory devil.


Jean-François Pouliot: Parliamentary rules do not permit of such language. Another slogan was this: It was said that the Canadian people did not pay any attention to Liberal policies. In Yamaska the election was between a Conservative and a Liberal, but in the Restigouche-Madawaska election as well as in Mackenzie there was also a C.C.F. candidate. Now, the Tories had repeated throughout the recess that the real issue was between 'the Prime Minister representing order and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) representing disorder. Why then was not the Prime Minister courageous enough to meet the electors of Mackenzie, Yamaska and Restigouche-Madawaska and personally submit to them the thousandth renewal of the unfulfilled promises of 1930? He did not even dare show up in Restigouche-Madawaska, in his own native province of New Brunswick, and this was greatly resented by the electors of that constituency. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) on the other hand was not afraid to speak several times in each constituency-Mackenzie, Yamaska and Restigouche-Madawaska. The Liberal party won the battle on the whole front, and I am particularly glad, as a humble backbencher of the Liberal party, to congratulate warmly the hon. members for Mackenzie, Yamaska and Restigouche-Madawaska on their magnificent victory at the polls. My duty was to give my hearty support to my hon. friend from Restigouche-Madawaska, and I must pay every tribute to the intelligence and patriotism of the electors of his constituency, and to my
The Address-Mr. Pouliot

own dear friends whom I met during that campaign-. Many of them came from my own neighbouring constituency. The hon. member for Restigouche-M-adawaska is a parliamentarian of seventeen years' experience in the local chamber and he will be a distinct asset to this house.
It is noticeable that a storm of wrath and indignation blows throughout the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from Nova Sooti-a to British Columbia. The Canadian people are dissatisfied with the statements of the Prime Minister and the inactivity of the government in so many important matters.
The amendment proposed by my right hon. leader reads:
We respectfully submit to Your .Excellency that Your Excellency's present advisers do not possess the confidence of the country.
I had the honour to accompany my leader, in the beautiful city of Campbellton, where two meetings were held in crowded halls. Turning to the Montreal Star of Friday, October 20, I find an article under the following heading:
King assails agreement to cut wheat acreage. Says Conservative tariff policy strangling trade in speech at Campbellton, JNi.B.-Charges Bennett preelection promises unfulfilled.
My hon. friend from Restigouohe-Mad-awaska spoke, and according to the report:
He charged the Prime Minister with adopting an "I can't" attitude in the face of serious conditions.
The member from Temiscouaita spoke at these two meetings. He spoke very plainly and frankly to the people there, and according to the report he said:
"Competition ever, amalgamation never" had been the cry of Mr. Bennett in regard to the railways when he attained power, said Mr. Pouliot. Mr. Bennett and Mr. E. VV. Beatty, president of the C.P.R. were friends, he continued. He had no objection to their being friends just so long as the friendship did not influence Mr. Bennett. But Mr. Beatty returned from Europe and said, "We must have immigration," and then Mr. Bennett echoed "immigration is badly needed."
Many years ago Mr. Bennett had referred to Mr. Meighen as the gramophone of Mackenzie and Mann. "To-day Mr. Bennett is the gramophone of the C.P.R.", aserted Mr. Pouliot. He declared that if a $60,000,000 guarantee was to be given to the C.P.R., parliament should have been summoned to approve such a guarantee.
The day after, my hon. and genial friend the Minister of Finance also held a meeting. He was fresh from the world economic conference, and I saw in the Citizen of August 28, 1933, that the hon. gentleman anticipated

great benefits from the conference. The heading declares that:
Hon. E. N. Rhodes -feels nations better acquainted.
That is very nice but it does not mean much to the pockets of the Canadian electors. The minister held a meeting in the same city of Campbellton, but he did not hold two meetings-just one, in one hall, and even that was not filled, notwithstanding that he was accompanied by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. MacLaren), the hon. member for Y-ork-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) and many other distinguished speakers. The city of Campbellton, formerly Conservative, gave a splendid majority to the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska.
At Edmundston on nomination day I was pleased to cross swords with the hon. member for Dorchester, (Mr. Gagnon), who was just back from Yamaska. My speech was very simple. It consisted merely of quotations from Hansard of questions put to the government, which the Prime Minister has always refused to answer. There were questions of special cars to the superintendent of railways, questions on imports of butter, on firms importing butter during the three or four months preceding the 1930 election, and on tax free bonds. I quoted Hansard of last year when the exMinister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) stated to the house that those tax free bonds should be converted. We have a new Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Matthews) whom I congratulate upon his promotion. We remember in the first year he was a member of the house he made a speech about loan conversion, and I hope he will convert his own friends in the government in order that they may convert the tax free bonds so that those who have money shall pay in future. At that meeting the audience blamed and censured the government for hiding the truth from those who have the right to be acquainted with it. What was the result of the election? I was there and noticed the great popularity of the Liberal candidate. Both the C.C.F. and the Tory candidates lost their deposits; the Liberal candidate was indeed very popular, but the verdict of the electorate proved also that the government does not possess any more the confidence of the country.
On Monday of last week, January 29, 1934, as reported in Hansard at page 9, I asked the government whether it was the intention to table the Amulree report on Newfoundland. What was the answer of the Prime Minister? It was the same as he always gives, that it was not proposed to table it; the

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
report, he said, was not in any sense connected with the operations of the government. Let us go back to last year. On February 7, 1933, the hon. member for Temiscouata said:
I see that this government has loaned $700,000 to Newfoundland; has saved that dominion twice from bankruptcy. These are large sums of money. We are not interested in the welfare of Newfoundland any more than that there are human beings there; we are not more interested in their affairs than we are in the welfare of Germans, French, Spaniards or Roumanians. [DOT]
Mr. Cowan (Long Lake): Oh, yes, we are.
What was the answer of the Minister of Finance? We find it at page 1874 of Hansard. I will read it, but I cannot do so with the tremolo he had in his voice when he was speaking about the matter. He pointed his finger at me in a very indignant way.


Mr. RHODES:: Never.


Jean-François Pouliot: I prefer my hon. friend
when he is smiling in such a genial way. This is what he said:
My hon. friend-
That is the hon. member for Temiscouata. -has said that Newfoundland means no more to Canada than does some foreign country. I do not think he will have many other members in the house or people in the country who will subscribe to that kind of view. Newfoundland is the odest dominion under the crown. It has been, and quite properly so, one of the boasts of the British people that they have always met their obligations. There has never been a default. When it was open to us in cooperation %vith the mother country, to lend a hand to the oldest dominion, a sister dominion, 1 claim we are entitled to consideration for having come to her assistance under those circumstances. What we did was to say to the banks who came to the assistance of Newfoundland at that time, that we would stand behind them in cooperation with the mother country in ease eventually Newfoundland found it impossible to meet her just obligations. So far from being criticized, I think we have every reason to take credit for having lent that helping hand under those circumstances. I do not need to place it on the ground of patriotic consideration. If, as has been the case in times past, we have come to the assistance of those who have met with disaster in foreign countries, surely we are entitled to come to the assistance of our sister dominion, Newfoundland, in the circumstances.
Is it not beautiful? Naturally this was done, in virtue of the blank cheque policy, as the hon. gentleman said in reply to a question of mine last year. But if I was right last year, why did the Minister of Finance, to use the expression of his own friends, waste the time of the house by censuring me? If on the other hand I was wrong, then why did the Canadian government, at the last world conference at London last summer or immediately thereafter, follow the lines of my humble suggestion? I do not blame the government for having accepted my suggestion, far from it, because millions of dollars have been saved thereby to the Canadian exchequer, but we are highly interested in seeing the Amulree report in order to find out whether it recommends the refund to the Canadian government of the loans guaranteed in favour of Newfoundland.
This is not so bad, but there is something else and I wish to tell the house' that in any speech of mine I have never made a personal attack against any member. On the other hand, there are things which are done by a public man which are related to public matters, especially when a member receives a public grant for something, and in that case we have a right to know to the last cent how it is expended. We are entitled to ask for this and to be told, and such remarks shall not be considered as a personal attack upon any member. Last year I spoke about a second-hand American-made car and I said this:
I have an objection to Canada's coat of arms being on this car. If the car belongs to the country I do not see why the country has bought for the Prime Minister, the apostle of "Canada first," an American made car. If it is privately owned by that gentleman, he has no right to put the coat of arms of Canada on his car.
I am glad to tell the house that the Prime Minister has conceded that this remark was quite right and he has had the coat of arms removed from the radiator of his car. I congratulate him on doing so; it is a step in the right direction. The Minister of Finance at that time said this:
I submit my hon. friend-
He was referring to the hon. member for Temiscouata.

went a little too far when he brought the name of the Prime Minister into the discussion in connection wth a matter which, after all, is his personal and private affair. I say to my hon. friend that the car owned by the Prime Minister was purchased by him in Canada as a second hand car, from a man in needy circumstances who wanted money. I am not going to stress that angle of it, but I know that idea was in the mind of the Prime Minister when he made the purchase. He had to have a car of some sort and he purchased it with his own funds.
That is all right, but I subscribe $400 a year for the upkeep of that car, so I must know whether it is a Canadian or United States make of car. I will not say there is a lack of judgment; English is not my native language, but I will say that it is a misuse of
The Address-Mr. Pouliot

judgment. This is a gentleman who is the protagonist of "Canada first," who says that we must buy Canadian products, and yet he buys a United States made car, and not only that, but a second-hand one. He could have helped his friend by lending him some money on his I.O.U. The question of charity does not come into the matter. Here is an 'American-made car bought by the Prime Minister whose policy is "Canada first." We see that car at the door of the east block every day as an advertisement for American-made goods. How can the Prime Minister speak to-day against purchasing American products? He himself shows that when he says, "My policy is Canada first;" he is not serious, the car that stands there proves the contrary.
I continue to quote my hon. friend the Minister of Finance:
I say I have not the slightest doubt that not only does he give away his $1,800 but much more besides. And when my hon. friend suggests that his only contribution to charity was $250-
Mr. Pouliot: I did not say that.
Mr. Rhodes: I am glad to hear the hon. member say he did not make that statement, because my interpretation of his remarks was that it was his impression the Prime Minister's benefactions were limited to that small sum of money. I am glad the Prime Minister is not here. Even although he may be absent I do not purpose going as far as I might go, but 1 feel obliged to say that the Prime Minister in his generosity towards his fellowmen is second to no man with whom I have ever come in contact in my lifetime. His modesty in connection with his benefactions, which I know to be numerous, is in marked contrast to the character which hon. gentlemen in this house would give him when they accuse him of being a Mussolini and a dictator.
I wonder if Mussolini or any dictator has an American-made car. But my idea was that having been deprived of $400 of my indemnity, and that amount having been given to the Prime Minister, who is much richer than I am, I wanted to know where that money was going. I said he subscribed only $250 in the Ottawa drive. What happened? Three days later he subscribed $500, a hundred dollars more than the tribute I have been forced to give him. A lady wrote me asking me for my contribution and I replied to her saying: My lady, I send you one dollar. My real contribution is $251, because the Prime Minister has subscribed $250 on my behalf.
Now, sir. there is something else that was mentioned in that speech on the 7th of February, and that is the Tokyo legation. I thought it was absurd for the government to build that legation when they were refusing to construct a building for the Supreme Court

of Canada, but were letting the judges sit in a former stable; or to build a new library to preserve the treasures that are in this library, which is not fireproof. But the hon Minister of Finance said: You will get a good explanation when the estimates come before the house. I was not here when the estimates for the Tokyo embassy came before the house, but what did I see in the Ottawa Journal of September 1 last?
Hon. H. Marler Is Financing New Tokyo Legation.
Dominion to repay actual cost, not exceeding $200,000 in ten years at 5 per cent interest.
That is a great bargain-the government can borrow money at four per cent and pay five per cent to Mr. Marler because he builds that legation in Japan. The Minister of Finance had some delightful words about it; he spoke about the patriotism of Mr. Marler -his words will be found at page 2009 of unrevised Hansard of February 7, 1933.
Another item to which I referred was the Canadian Pacific loan. I objected to that loan last year in the same speech. I said that under the blank cheque act it was unfair for the government to supply money to any private concern. Last year the government supplied quite a large amount, and this year it is much worse; they guaranteed $60,000,000. Sir, it is too bad that the government did not convene parliament in order to have that matter fully discussed before the house.
I hold in my hand a sample of the propaganda used in the Restigouche-Madawaska election. What is said? " If you want prosper^ to come back to the labourer and the farmer, vote for Paul L. Dube, the government candidate." It is the same old story. And there was another defeated candidate campaigning with him. I have his own program at the last election; it was drafted in exactly the same words. Sir, I do not wish to be offensive to any member of the cabinet -there are some very likeable gentlemen among them-but let me tell them that if I have mentioned the automobile matter and the Ottawa relief drive incidents it is to show them [DOT] that they should not be afraid to speak to the Prime Minister; they should not kneel down before him; they should speak to him as man to man and have the courage to tell him, when he boasts in a bombastic way-


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: He never
does.


Jean-François Pouliot: -they should tell him to cool down. The hon. member who spoke before me said that in his constituency they had appointed an undertaker for the Con-

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
servative party; I suggest that the bon. member for Long Lake be embalmed in his lifetime. I will ask the hon. member for Long Lake and the hon. gentlemen who sit on the front benches to have the courage to speak plainly to the Prime Minister so that he will understand that in the cabinet council those who sit with him are men and not slaves.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: It is well, Mr. Speaker, that the
speech from the throne gives the opportunity for discussion of other matters than those referred to in the speech, because there is very little in this speech from the throne that is of any great importance. It is mostly made up of platitudes that do not amount to anything. I am sure that the people of Canada are disappointed that there is not more in it. The old saying is true that hope springs eternal in the human breast, and I am sure that the people of Canada were looking forward to something worth while in the speech from the throne. I believe the government has missed a real opportunity for taking bold steps in the way of reconstructing the economic life of this country. I believe they could have the people of this country with them in almost any steps they might take having for their purpose the improvement of the general condition of the people of Canada. However, there is in the speech no departure from the program that has been followed in the three or four years of the life of this parliament. Not only is the speech itself disappointing, but the speeches made on the address in reply by both the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) have also been disappointing. At perhaps the most serious time in the history of the world they have really talked irrelevancies so far as this debate is concerned. The other day I picked up a book entitled The Liberal Way, in which I read a speech delivered by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). At the beginning of the speech he had this to say:
Never before in the history of mankind has the world known a period of such rapid transition, and of such great unrest, as it is experiencing in these very years.
Despite that fact, and his realization of it, he spent an hour of the time of this house in discussing the question of titles. The Prime Minister chided him for the irrelevancy of his remarks, and then took up an hour and ten minutes discussing the same subject. The people in my constituency are not concerned with titles; there are other things of greater importance with which they
are concerned. A great many of them are concerned as to when they are going to get into employment again. Many of them are concerned with the question of when their sons are going to leave the unemployment camps, and a great many of them are concerned with the question of when their children who have finished their education are going to find something to do. These are some of the questions with which the people in my constituency are concerned, and I have no doubt that this is the general feeling all over the Dominion of Canada.
I do not know that it would be correct to say that my constituents are not concerned in some small degree in the question of titles. There was a rumor abroad that if titles were restored in Canada the Prime Minister might receive a peerage, and that in this case he would leave the country. As far as the people in my constituency are concerned the king's prerogative cannot be exercised too hastily if that can be brought about. If they could do the same thing for the leader of the opposition I believe that would meet with approval also.


Miss MACPHAIL:: That is pretty hard on the old country.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, but in these days it is every man for himself.


Mr. SENN:: Is that your theory?


Angus MacInnis: No, it is the theory of
those who support capitalism.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Where would you send
Judge Stubbs?


Angus MacInnis: Judge Stubbs can look
out for himself. That reminds me that there has been a very considerable change in the attitude of the parties in this house since the special session of 1930. Our friends the Conservatives have lost the confident bearing which they had at that time, and I believe they have lost some of the arrogance which they displayed when this parliament first met. I believe their more humble attitude becomes them very much better. Our Liberal friends have emerged from the valley of humiliation; they feel very cocky at the present time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. MaoINNIS: Quite so. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) referring to the British farmers the other evening, said they had tasted blood and were looking for more. Our Liberal friends have tasted blood, and they are looking for more. They tasted
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis

a little blood in the three recent by-elections, but I would suggest that they would show wisdom if they made haste slowly. Unless they have some other policy than they have placed before the people of this country so far they are not going to make any better fist of finding a solution for the problems of this country than the party in power at the present time.
That brings me to the by-elections and the general political activity in this dominion during the recess. My hon. friend from Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher), in his speech the other evening, said that the C.C.F. were given a bad licking in the province of Nova Scotia. That is not so; they did not enter the contest. The fact is that they did not get a licking because they were not in the contest. We had no organization there; two men ran on their own, taking the C.C.F. label, and they were defeated. That is not a licking. The hon. gentleman then went on to refer to the by-election in Mackenzie, and he stated that I took the C.C.F. candidate into that riding and introduced him to the people. I did not expect that from the hon. member for Last Mountain, whom I have always considered a gentleman. If he had wanted the facts in the case he could have secured them very easily. I was asked to go into the Mackenzie riding for the nominating convention meeting two months before it was held. At that time the C.C.F. candidate who ran in Mackenzie was still on the bench, and consequently was not eligible for nomination.


Mr. HANBURY:: He knew he was going to be eligible.
Mr. MaoINNIS: He did not know.


Wilfred Hanbury: We did.


Angus MacInnis: Possibly you had the ear of the commissioner. The fact is that I was asked to go in there, and I certainly did not introduce the candidate into the riding; he was selected at a nominating convention that was just as democratic-though perhaps there was less beer

as the convention which nominated the Liberal candidate.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Pretty small politics.


Angus MacInnis: My hon. friend from South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) said that our candidate was hand-picked. My hon. friend ought to be an authority on that, because I understand that he was hand-picked himself, or perhaps it was hand-plucked.
Now let us analyze the situation with regard to the Mackenzie election; I do not think it looks so bad for the C.CF. The leader of the opposition said that Mr. Camp-

bell, the previous member for that riding, was elected with a majority of 3,076. That is quite true, but the right hon. gentleman did not tell the house that there were two Liberal candidates in the last election, and that instead of Mr. Campbell having a majority of 3,076 over the other candidates, he had a minority of 356 votes.
In the by-election of 1933 there were four candidates, the United Front, the Conservative, the Liberal and the C.CF. The Prime Minister made the statement that this was the first time in a generation that the Conservatives had run a candidate in the Mackenzie riding, and the question might be asked why they ran a candidate this time. Perhaps our Liberal friends are not altogether wrong when they say that the former member for Mackenzie was favourable to the Conservative party. At all events they never ran a candidate against him, and consequently we can only assume that he had Conservative support. On that assumption the only reason the Conservative party ran a candidate in this election was to help out the Liberal candidate by taking away from the C.CF. man the Conservative votes that usually went to the Progressive candidate. So my friends should be a little more generous and thank the Conservative party for helping them win the Mackenzie seat.


John Vallance: We did not run one against you, either.


William Richard Motherwell: The Consevatives could not support Stubbs.
Mr. MaoINNIS: They were very much more afraid of Stubbs coming here than were the Liberals, and that was another reason why they wished to help out their Liberal friends.
Now I come to the British Columbia elections, the first major political fight since the organization of the C.C.F. We had no money, we had no breweries, we had no press.


Wilfred Hanbury: What do you mean by " no "?


Angus MacInnis: The usual meaning of the word. It is one of those simple words which it is difficult to define.


Wilfred Hanbury: No money?
Mr. MaoINNIS: We had no money. We did not have any. We were confronted with the most unscrupulous and scurrilous campaign that was ever waged in the province of British Columbia. Our Liberal opponents stuck at nothing. The only question they asked was, would it bring votes? If it did, it

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
was done. Every appeal to fear, every appeal to prejudice, every appeal to passion, every appeal to ignorance that could possibly be made was made by them during that election. Yet despite that, the C.C.F. made a very good showing. The Liberal party received
151.000	votes, about 42 per cent of the total, and they won 34 seats, while the C.C.F. got
115.000	votes, or 33 per cent of the total, but won only 7 seats. All the other candidates combined got a total of about 92,000 votes, or 25 per cent of the votes, and received 6 seats. If the C.C.F. had received seats in proportion to the number of the votes polled, then instead of having 7 seats they would have had considerably over twice that number. We are indeed very well satisfied with the results. We shall be better prepared when the next election takes place, and we are quite satisfied that when that time comes, whether our Liberal and Conservative friends are joined together, as they very soon will be, or are fighting separate campaigns, we shall be able to give them a run for their money.


James Layton Ralston: Will j'ou have some money next time?


Angus MacInnis: We do not need it because we have what is more fundamental-we have a policy-and I shall refer to that later on.
Another thing has happened since the election in British Columbia to which I wish to refer. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), during his speaking tour in the prairie provinces, at one of his meetings made a statement that went something like this: You may be hard up now, he said, but at least you are free, but just wait until the C.C.F. gets power, and then you won't have even that. Well, Mr. Speaker, let us see just how free some people in this country are. I am sorry the leader of the opposition is not present at the moment. I should like to have asked him if he had ever lived in a company town or in an employment camp. If he had ever been in any of these places he would have a better understanding of what freedom means and to the extent to which it may be exercised by the workers in this land of freedom. There is a Mackenzie constituency in the province of British Columbia. It takes in some of the company towns on the west coast of the province, Powell River, Ocean Falls and some of those places. This constituency of Mackenzie elected a C.C.F. candidate even if Mackenzie in Saskatchewan did not. And what happened? The managers in this company town of Powell River are now discharging the men in their employ who dared
to exercise the prerogative of their Canadian citizenship by voting for whomsoever they liked. These men voted and worked for the C.C.F. candidate in that constituency-and such action did not meet with the approval of the company so the men are dismissed.


Wilfred Hanbury: Was there not a secret
ballot there?


Angus MacInnis: There was a secret ballot, yes, but the names of these men who took part in the C.C.F. organization were not secret, and these men, some of whom have given as long as twenty years faithful service to this company, have been discharged without an hour's notice and replaced by other men brought into Powell River from Vancouver and elsewhere. This is an American company. In those company towns the company is mayor, alderman, laundryman, landlord, boardinghouse keeper, and many other things. In some of these towns it is sufficient for a man to have a labour or socialist paper sent to him through the mail; the post office being on the company's premises, the receipt of that paper, is as good as an order for his dismissal. These companies have received concessions from both Liberal and Conservative governments in the province of British Columbia, but those governments never took the trouble to see that the men working for the companies were protected. The men are not allowed to organize. The government never saw to it that they were given the opportunity to organize into a trade union if they saw fit. And yet our friends talk about liberty.
The leader of the opposition was also very mudh afraid that at some time he might come under the command of the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macpbail) and have to take orders from her. Well, I do not know whether her orders would be any harder than the orders given in a company town by an American company.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: That is not going very far.


Angus MacInnis: Probably not far enough. There is nothing much that can be done in this house to remedy the conditions I have spoken of, but I hope that when the question is raised in the provincial legislature, as it certainly will be, our Liberal friends will be as liberal in the house as they were before the election.
There is one other matter to which I wish to refer. It is rather strange that it has not been more emphasized during this debate, and that is the guarantee of $60,000,000 to the banks of this country on their advances to
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis

the Canadian Pacific Railway. If I might use an expression that is often used by the Prime Minister in this house, do hon. gentlemen realize the significance of that? Do they really appreciate what it means? Here is the largest commercial organization in the Dominion of Canada, a Canadian institution if you like, with its signs up everywhere that its transportation system spans the globe. Now what does this guarantee mean? It means that this company along with five hundred thousand or more, possibly a million, of the other inhabitants of this country is at present on relief, and the dominion government is dealing with it far more generously than it is dealing with the ordinary person on relief.
The Prime Minister tells us that the security for the loan is good, but the fact remains that the company went to Great Britain to try to raise the money, and they could not raise it there. Why? Because the money lenders in Great Britain did not think their security good enough. They also went to New York to try to raise (the money but the moneylenders in New York would mot make a loan to them. Why? Because their security was not good enough. Then they went to the Canadian banks and the Canadian banks would not loan them money for the same reason. They did not think the company's security was good enough. I wonder if the government, before loaning this money, asked the officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway what they had dome with the profits of the many years of prosperity which they had enjoyed, because we all know that the Canadian Pacific Railway did have some very profitable years. In 1928 this company made a net profit of $51,693,450; in 1929 the net profit was $43,144,543 and in 1930, $38,246,658. The total for the three years was $133,084,651. I think that any company having made such substantial profits for so many years should be able to carry on for more than four years of hard times. The people of this dominion should be careful that they do not take over another bankrupt railway company uipon the same terms as they took over the last one.
There is not very much in the speech to which I desire to refer but there are a few things in it which those of us in this corner have been pressing upon the government for several years. There is the promise of legislation to facilitate the efficient and profitable marketing of live stock and agricultural products. It is very noticeable that no matter what party is in office or, in fact, what party is in opposition, the only policy of any government which is of any value is a policy

looking to the promotion of cooperation. The Labour party in Great Britain was in office in 1931 and they brought forward legislation for the marketing of agricultural products. This entailed the compulsory organization of the producers as well as compulsory marketing. At that time the Conservative opposition opposed the legislation, yet during the last session of the British parliament the Conservative government put substantially the same kind of legislation into effect. The farmers of this country are asking that similar legislation be put into effect here. It has been tried in British Columbia and other provinces but has been declared to be ultra vires the power of provincial governments. The legislation in itself is all right but it does not go far enough, as the farmers will soon find out.
As a matter of fact, the farmers, in asking for legislation of this kind, have arrived at the stage the working men of this country arrived at when they began to organize into trade unions. The farmers have arrived at the trade union stage, if you like. All they are asking for is a closed shop in agriculture. When this legislation came up in the province of British Columbia I was a member of the city council of Vancouver. Every member of that council opposed this legislation except myself. I took the position that I was a member of an organization that had a closed shop and what was good for me, was good for the farmer. Anyway, I felt he was entitled to it if he wanted it, whether or not it was good for him. I think the farmer will soon find out that no matter what legislation is passed, what really matters is the existence of markets. A union is beneficial to a working man only as long as he has a job; the minute he loses his job, a union can do very little for him. The farmer is in the same position. His cooperative organization will be of benefit to him as long as he is able to dispose of the products of his labour but when there is no market, his cooperative organization will not be of much benefit. However, I am sure that hon. members in this corner of the house will give the government every assistance in passing any legislation which will tend to improve the position of the farmers of this country.
The organization of a central bank is also mentioned in the speech. We in this comer of the house have been asking for this for many years. Our Liberal friends tell us that they are in favour of it and have been in favour of it for some considerable time. I believe that is so because I have in my hand a copy of a resolution which was passed at

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
the great Liberal convention held in Winnipeg in 1917. They were in favour of it at that time but they had nine years in office and did not do anything to give effect to the resolution which they passed. Some of my Liberal friends may have forgotten this resolution, so I should like to put it on record. It reads:
That, in the opinion of this convention, the time has arrived for the reorganization of the banking system of Canada, so as to bring it more nearly within the democratic spirit of proper regulation and control by the people, and with this object in view, be it resolved that:-
1.	The banking system of Canada should be placed under the control and regulation of a banking commission invested with plenary powers in all matters pertaining to banking, currency, coinage and credits, and, in particular power to regulate and control:
(a)	The issues of public currency;
(b)	The coinage of gold and silver;
(c)	The purchase of bullion produced in Canada;
(d)	The amount of call money loaned outside of Canada;
(e)	Interlocking directorates;
(f)	The supervision of credits;
(g)	The capitalization of banks;
(h)	The payments of dividends;
(i)	The relations of subsidiary trust and money-lending concerns to banks;
(j)	And generally, all such matters that are necessarily incident to the proper regulation and control of banking and currency.
2.	Be it further resolved in connection therewith there should be established a national bank of Canada, as a central reserve institution, upon whose board of governors should also sit, amongst others, ex officio, the members of the said banking commission; the objects of said national bank to include inter alia the primary responsibility of marshalling and mobilizing the gold and silver reserves of the nation and the ownership and control of the issues of public and national currency.
That resolution was passed unanimously at the Liberal convention of 1917. During their nine years in office the Bank Act came up for revision, but despite the fact that this resolution had been passed the president of the bankers' association was able to say that all the major amendments which had been made to the act had been sponsored by the association. This matter is coming up this year and I hope our Liberal friends will be a little more articulate in its favour than they were in 1923 when the Bank Act was last up for revision.
The speech from the throne tells us that we are being called together at a time of improving conditions when there are sound reasons to believe that permanent prosperity is near at hand. There may be a slight improvement in the economic condition of the Dominion of Canada, it may be said that throughout the whole world there is a slight 74726-28
improvement in the tempo of production and trade but I do not think there are any signs which would indicate that we are on the way to a return of what we have been pleased to call prosperity.
In the province of British Columbia the unemployment situation this year is very little different to what it was last year. As far as the city of Vancouver itself is concerned, it is costing more this year for unemployment relief than it did last year. For the two weeks ending January 17 there were 8,626 on relief, 184 more than in the previous two weeks, and the cost for these two weeks Was $94,919, while the cost for the comparable two weeks in 1933 was $88,652. Taking the whole province, the situation is not materially better. There was a decrease of little less than 2,000 in the number of those on relief on January 1, 1934, as compared with those on relief on January 1, 1933. So that the situation as far as British Columbia is concerned is certainly not improving at a rate that would lead us to believe that prosperity is just around the corner.
The Prime Minister some little time ago honoured our city with a visit and made the statement that he did not want to leave a bankrupt country for the younger generation. It seems to me that if we do not do something for the younger generation, very shortly the danger will be that we shall leave a bankrupt younger generation to the country. This is the way the situation is developing at the present time.
The seconder of the address (Mr. Barber) in a complimentary way referred to the manner in which the city of Vancouver had dealt with the unemployment situation in the last year. The city of Vancouver has indeed had a difficult situation to deal with ever since the depression began. As pointed out by the hon. member, we have had far more than our share of Canada's unemployed, largely because of the milder climate on the Pacific coast. The city at the beginning of last year was faced with this situation, that it could get no further credit; it could not borrow money, and the banks insisted that it should carry on the activities of the city with such money as could be raised by taxation. We have done so, but those who have borne the brunt of that economy have been the unemployed and the children of the city of Vancouver. The municipal inspector of schools reported at the end of the year that there were four thousand school children in Vancouver in need of dental attention which could not be afforded since the school board was compelled to close the dental department on

The Address-Mr. Neill

March 31. The city of Vancouver has been able to care for its unemployed without further borrowings, but it has done so at the expense of the present and future health of the children of the city. But more than that, although Vancouver is the third largest city in Canada, we had one main library and a branch library, and the branch was closed altogether. The main library was closed for two months of the year, and for the rest of the year was open only during certain hours of the day. I do not think we need look with pride on the administration of affairs if we are going to curtail the cultural activities and those activities that are necessary to the health and well being of the people. There is nothing further I wish to say at this time except to remark again that it is regrettable that this government did not take advantage of this opportunity to bring forward legislation which would undoubtedly have the support not only of the house but of the country at large as well-legislation that would tend to raise the continually depressed and falling standard of living of the great majority of the people in this dominion.


Alan Webster Neill: I
propose to use the short time at my disposal in presenting to the house and the government a brief statement of the situation in the coal mining industry, which is one of the largest in the district I represent. I have in my hand the record of output of the coal mines of Vancouver island for the last year. They produced in 1933 601,000 tons as compared with 749,000 tons in 1932, a decrease of 14)8,000 tons. There was a substantial decrease the year before. Of that 148,000 tons of shortage, I can tell where at least 32,000 came from; 22,500 tons were imported from Britain, which should not have been imported, and 9,300 tons came from the United States, which is just about the shortage in the Cumberland mine situated in my district. The shortage there was 36,300 tons.
I obtained the other day a return showing the amount paid by the government under the bonus system they inaugurated a couple of years ago. The quantity on which bonus was paid was this last year 53,904 tons as against 72,284 tons the previous year, and the amount paid in cash, at 50 cents per ton, was this year 826,952 as against $36,132 the year before. That was all for bunker coal, on which the bonus is 50 cents a ton. It will be recalled that the government granted a bonus of $1 a ton for export coal, but I am sorry to say that this last year, as the record shows, no advantage was taken of that. In the previous year there was 600 tons but this year
(Mr. Maclnnis.]
there was none. The Minister of Mines will remember, as I remember, very definite and positive assurances that were held out to us that if this bonus of SI a ton for export trade could be obtained there was little doubt that it would develop into a trade of about 50,000 tons. The responsibility for what has happened lies elsewhere. It is not the fault of the minister, and possibly it is nobody's fault; it may be merely a misfortune. But there is certainly a great difference between expecting to ship 50,000 tons and not shipping any.
In the fall of 1932 I discovered that under the terms of the Ottawa agreements with Britain, coal was being shipped from Great Britain. That coal, I found to my astonishment, was being subsidized by the British government. T do not know and I have not been able to find out the extent, but I have positive knowledge it is subsidized under the Coal Mines Act of Great Britain. It is further subsidized by what might be called ballast rates. That is, ships are coming here to get wheat and lumber under the imperial conference agreements and often, rather than come out in ballast, they take coal at what is practically the same cost. This runs about one-third of what the regular rate would be or what the rate is on the homeward run.
Last year I protested in the house against, this situation and I was told that it was easy to find fault and was asked what remedy I could suggest. I very promptly replied that the remedy was obvious and right in our hands, and that was the imposition of a dumping duty. That was in March, and along about the end of May the government announced that they were going to impose a dumping duty. With that childlike confidence in governments that has handicapped me in my political life, I went home and told my friends that everything was all right; that the government was going to impose a dumping duty. I dhould not have said that; I should have said that they were going to proceed mildly in 'the general direction of considering whether they would or would not do anything. That is what the government did, anyway. I have in my hand a clipping from an Ottawa newspaper, I think the Ottawa Journal, and of course it must be right. The article is headed:
Action is taken to stop dumping bituminous coal. British producers invoiced coal at below market prices.
The article, which is quite a long one, says that the government has been aware of the situation and is going to stop it. It stated that this ooal is being brought out at very low prices and a case is quoted where the

The Address-Mr. Neill
difference between the fair price and the price it was ibeing sold at for export wias something like fen shillings a ton. It was stated that the government was going to charge a dump duty equivalent to the difference between the invoice price and the minimum price in the zone where the coal came from. It was said that this would not yield much revenue but it would have the effect of keeping our British Columbia coal market for British Columbia, which, of course, is desirable.
Later on 'the government issued a circular to their customs agents to the effect that they had reason to believe that coal was being dumped; they gave a list of the minimum zone prices in Britain and suggested that their agents should use that in arriving at the dumping duty. I might explain what the zone system is. The British Coal Mines Act divides Britain into zones and fixes a minimum price under which coal must not be sold in 'the different zones. Mark you, this is a minimum price; they can, if they like, go much higher. This article bears all the impress of being genuine and having been obtained from some authoritative source. In one case the National Revenue office was quoted as being the authority, although I must say in fairness to them, they denied it. At any rate, it was shown in this article that while the minimum zone price was about fourteen shillings a ton, coal was actually being sold at ten shillings for export to Canada and at eighteen shillings for use in Britain. This 'price of ten shillings was, as will be observed, eight shillings below the regular selling price in Britain, but the government did not take any notice of that. One would think that the difference in price would mean a dump of eight shillings a ton, but the government told their agents to use as their guide the minimum prices quoted in Britain and apparently that is about all they did. The best information I have as late as November 9 is that no dumping duty had been applied at that time. I do know, because I was told, that the first 9,637 tons got in free-rather a poor start. Might I say, nothing was done- Perhaps I am not justified in saying that but I oan say this: I do not know and if the question that I asked yesterday is not answered, when shall I ever know?-if the government have power to impose a dumping duty and not reveal the extent of it. This puts one in a very awkward position.
I want to turn for a moment to the question of anthracite. This last year 3,626 tons of anthracite were brought in, valued at $16,929, which works out at $4.68 a ton, or, in other words, the best coal in the world valued at 74726-28J
about $4.70 a ton. Can our friends in Nova Scotia with their bituminous coal mines and we with our deep coal mines compete with that? Further than that, according to the British agreements, the anthracite coal is liable to no regular duty. When I learned that, I said: Well, then, there are various forms of dumping; we will apply under section 6. I said: Why are you not applying section 6? Section 6 is one the minister can apply in order to impose a dumping duty. The answer I received was: Yes, but anthracite coal does not come under that section, because a ruling has been made that anthracite coal is not of a class or kind produced in Canada, and therefore section 6 does not apply. It is very easy to give such rulings, but it is not so easy to justify them. It is not correct to say that anthracite coal is not of a class or kind produced in Canada. That is all that is the matter with that argument and if it is not true, it should not be adduced.


Mr. YOUNG:: Where is anthracite pro-
' duced in Canada?


Alan Webster Neill: In Alberta at Anthracite,
near Banff. I have before me the records provided by a government department of the production for the last six years. It runs about 900 tons a year; the mine is a small one, I admit. Possibly the demand out there is low or the coal hard to dig, I do not know, but if it suited some manufacturers in the east to say that goods were being produced in Canada, they would not have to produce 900 tons of it; if they produced three dozen, that would suffice. I think I could quote an instance that occurred not long ago where, for the purpose of obtaining a higher tariff, they erected a bogus factory in Canada and produced a few dozen or scores of articles. I submit that a production of 900 tons a year means that anthracite coal is being produced in Canada, and therefore when imported it should be liable to the dumping duty.
Failing in that, I turned to section 43 and I said: At least we have them there. This is a section where the minister, on being convinced that any article is being imported under conditions prejudicial to producers or manufacturers in Canada, can fix any valuation he likes, a fictitious one, of course, and he has often done so, fixing a very high one. I said: We have got them there; but, oh, no, I was then told that according to the British agreement, this section did not apply to anything coming under a British preference, so we were balked again. Therefore the situation is this: anthracite comes in subsidized by the British government, subsidized by a low freight rate which is practically that of ballast,
The Address-Mr. Neill

likely to be reduced still further very shortly, because the steamers are going to be subsidized by the British government, paying no regular duty, no dumping duty although obviously it should be liable as it is produced in Canada, and with no valuation under section 43 because the agreement so states, and this may result in British anthracite flooding our market. It is true that only 4,000 tons were imported last year, but our market is wide open to the British as our defences are down and we have no protection whatever because of the conditions I have mentioned and of cheap labour in the old country.
To turn to bituminous coal again on which the importation is greater under the Ottawa agreements there is a duty of thirty-five cents instead of seventy-five cents a ton which is what we pay when we ship our coal to the country to the south of us. It too is subsidized in just the same way, allowed to use the minimum zone figures instead of the real (price at which it is sold at home, and by low freight rates and all the rest. There can be a dumping duty put on bituminous coal, that is what I am pleading for to-day, and that is what I wanted information about yesterday. They allowed 9,000 tons to come in free which gave them a good start. Let me give an illustration of how vigourous this development is going to be. I have in my hand a number of advertisements of coal:
Best South Yorkshire hard coal, low ash, high heat, order now.
Here is another, a great big thing that must have cost quite a lot of money, making all the standard arguments in its favour, by a company which has all kinds of money behind it, and branches all over the world; if it once gets a footing in the British 'Columbia market it will be very hard to dislodge. It may be said: "Oh well, it is not much after all." But isn't it? It was 1,100 tons the year before and 23,000 last year, an increase of something like 2,200 per cent-rather a substantial increase in these days of declining trade. That is why I am so anxious to find out whether the dumping duty is imposed on this coal, and if not, why not. As I say, the last I heard, in November, was that they were going to get an analysis of the coal. Well, when it is coming in at the rate of 23,000 tons a year, if they just begin to get an analysis, it will be six months before they get around to putting a dumping duty on. Then I asked what amount was paid under this head, and I am told that to give the information would disclose private business. How could it? All I asked was to know the amount of dumping 
duty paid; not paid by Jones, or Smith, or any individual, nor the percentage, but only the amount of dumping duty. The answer could have been $50,000 or 810,000, or it could have been $4 a ton; would that betray the private business of anyone? Would it betray the price at which they bought the coal or the real price in the old country? It would do none of these things; it would be only a record of what the government collected. If the Minister of Public Works lets a contract for a wharf, it is always open to us to ask such particulars, and he always readily and cheerfully answers, telling us not only who got the contract but all the people who bid for it, and whait the detailed estimates were, not only of the man who got the contract, but of the other men who also bid. Any of us can ask for that and get it. Is not information of that kind much more private business than to know whether an aggregation of importers paid dumping duty on this 23,000 tons and if so, what amount? The Prime Minister said he thought it should be given if imported by more than one man; it was, but even if it had been only one it would not reveal his private business. Another point that makes it so objectionable is that it is such a dangerous precedent. Where is it going to end? My friend and I are competitors in the coal business; he cuts prices, I want to know why. I say; I wonder if he is paying dump duty-I know I am. But I have no way to find out. The dumping duty can be put on and taken off, there is no way to find out whether I am getting a square deal or whether he is.
It may be suggested: Oh well, I am playing politics. Nothing of the kind. Several members of the cabinet know that on several occasions I have take action very different from that, when I could have made a lot of political kudos by not dealing directly with them. Here is a telegram which I find in a return I got the other day; it was sent by the secretary of the Mining Association of British Columbia to the Prime Minister:
Coal operators here all of whom are members of this association fear that budget .proposals designed to protect and assist the British Columbia coal industry will not only fail to accomplish that purpose but will have a contrary effect and cause irreparable injury.
Here is a letter from the Hon. N. A. McKenzie, Conservative Minister of Mines in British Columbia at that time. He writes to the Minister of Mines and says:
[DOT]-but I am afraid that the budget's coal policy will injure more than it will benefit the coal business of this province.

The Address-Mr. Neill
He was then a Conservative cabinet minister, so he was not saying it for political effect. That is the way this is regarded out there by men in a position to judge. I am not arguing the merits of the dumping duty system at all; it is often abused and will be again, but we have the system and we are entitled to the benefit of it. We have a high tariff; we have had for some years, and it is alleged by many people in the west that it was imposed simply for the advantage of the eastern manufacturer. I am not saying that, but I say that is often thought and said. If that is the case it peculiarly becomes those who father this tariff, and who support it, to be very careful to see that it is properly and legally applied for the benefit of the natural producers in the west. 'Suppose it had been shirts or shoes coming in; I do not think we should have had to wait until the equivalent of 20,000 tons came before they began to think of taking some action; until a powerful British corporation had got a vested interest started in British Columbia. You know how hard these vested interests kick if there is a proposal to put them out of business; we would have the British government complaining that we were not play^ ing ithe game under the Ottawa agreements. Our right to use the dumping duties is one of those compensating adjustments which the Prime Minister spoke of some years ago, and quite properly so. I would urge that the dumping duty be put on to the full, not playing with some minimum zone thing, but on the difference between the fair price at which it is sold at home and the price it is sold at for export. Remember that as a result of the imperial conference we are compelled in British Columbia to compete with coal which is (1) subsidized by the British government; (2) subsidized by low wages; (3) subsidized by low freight rates, practically ballast rates, and, (4) in the case of anthracite, given the advantage of paying no duty, no dump duty, a price of $4.70 a ton, and no possibility of raising the valuation; and in the case of bituminous, a low duty and the other advantages. We are paying part of the price of the imperial conference agreements. We have lost entirely the coal market that we enjoyed in the United States, just as we lost the lumber market we enjoyed there, not by any deliberate action of the government, but simply by
what one might call the local incidence. I have no doubt that is what the Prime Minister had in mind when he spoke about compensating adjustments.


Mr. MANION:: Had we not lost the
lumber market in the United States long before the imperial conference agreements?


Alan Webster Neill: No, certainly not.


Robert James Manion: I think we had.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, I don't. There is this
much to be said-and I want to be fair- when these ships come from Great Britain for lumber and wheat they are not all coal burners, most of them take some coal from us. That is to our advantage, but the report I read a few minutes ago shows that the bunkering trade is decreasing, so that phase cannot have done us much good. We pay in every direction for the high tariff, so let us share in the arrangements under the high tariff designed to let the producing interests keep the market. This is a chance, not for the manufacturers but for the actual producers, those who produce coal and lumber and fish-original producers, as I might say- it is a chance to give them a fifty-fifty deal.
We are entitled to the benefit of the tariff the same as the eastern manufacturer. He is quick to take advantage of a dumping duty; it is within his right, but why should not we? If I have any kick about that it is against the act, not against their action in taking advantage of it. It is there; it is the system we live under; we need it-God knows we need it badly in British Columbia to protect our coal market-and all we ask at the present time is that the government see that the dumping duty is put on. And I might express a mild desire to be told positively that it was put on and to what extent. I urge the government that the immediate and insistent need of the coal industry in British Columbia to-day, besides other remedies, is to have this dumping duty imposed speedily and steadily.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton) moved the second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the criminal code (appeals).
Criminal Code-Appeals
[Stage Direction]
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have already explained the purpose of this bill, which proposes two amendments to section 750 of the criminal code, dealing with appeals from summary convictions. The first amendment is for the purpose of providing that an accused person who has been convicted under part XV of the code, and who has been sentenced to a fine, may have the same rights, pending his appeal, as are already provided under the code for persons who have been charged with and convicted of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment without fine or to a fine and, in default of payment, to imprisonment. In either of these latter two cases the accused person oan enter into a recognizance and remain at liberty pending the appeal, but the Strange thing is that a person who has been convicted of an offence for which 'he is sentenced to a fine and not to imprisonment has to pa}' the fine immediately or he may be liable to an order for distress. The purpose of the amendment is to give him the right, pending his appeal, to enter into a recognizance and remain at liberty until his appeal is heard.
The second amendment would preserve to a person Who has been convicted under the summary convictions part of the code the right of appeal notwithstanding that he may not, at the time of his conviction and sentence, have given an unequivocal indication of his intention to appeal. As the law now stands, and it has been settled very well by the cases, if a man is sentenced to a fine and, perhaps without knowing of his right of appeal, pays the fine and costs without giving an unequivocal indication of his intention to appeal, by that act he waives his right of appeal. If later, discovering his right to appeal, within the time provided, he lodges such appeal, he may be met by the crown when the appeal comes on for hearing, with the objection that he has lost his right of appeal. The purpose of the amendment is to preserve such right unless he has given some unequivocal indication that he does not intend to pursue an appeal.
I do not know that I can add anything more. I have the case law here if any hon. member wishes to be persuaded as to the accuracy of my understanding of the law.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Does this
just cover cases of convictions before a magistrate?


Mr. BURY:: Yes, it just covers trials before a magistrate, summary convictions.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: Mr. Speaker, personally I see no objection to the two amendments proposed in

the bill now before the house, but when the bill was introduced a few days ago I took occasion to refer it to the law officers of the department, asking them to consider it and let me have a report. I do not think the report is ready as yet; at least I have not received it, and my suggestion is that the bill might be read a second time-because I think in principle it is right-and then allowed to stand in committee until I receive a definite report from the law officers of the department. If that could be done I would be obliged.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I extend my congratulations to the hon. gentlemen who moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. That they performed their duties in a creditable manner was amply evidenced by the hearty response they received from their followers.
For my own part I have felt that in the house this session there is a determination to get down to the very serious problems that are confronting our people in a manner that shows a desire to deal with them in a definite way. I refer particularly to the address of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) a few days ago, during the course of which he asked for cooperation and the general sympathetic consideration by all members of the house of the problems now facing us. I was in hopes that this sentiment would continue to prevail throughout the session, and I think there has been some evidence that we are making progress in that regard; I believe a determined effort is being made to approach the problems ahead of us with an open mind in an effort to relieve the distressing conditions which exist throughout the country.
I was disappointed, however, when I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson), which left the inference with me that the people of eastern Canada felt that they were becoming unduly burdened because of conditions in western Canada. I think that is unfortunate, and I

The Address-Mr. Weir (Macdonald)
hope that spirit is not general throughout the east. After all, many of the people in western Canada are blood relatives and kinsmen to the people in eastern Canada, and it was hoped that a spirit of sympathetic cooperation could continue to exist between the east and the west. I do hope that the sentiments expressed by the hon. gentleman are not generally held in eastern Canada. I think his remarks were very well answered by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) a few nights ago. He gave evidence as to the situation that actually exists in western Canada, so I do not think there should be any doubt as to what the west is actually attempting to do under very trying circumstances.
In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I should like to go a little further and indicate some factors which particularly affect the situation in the west to-day. After all, eastern Canada has gained a great deal from the west and the west has meant a great deal to the east. I think it is well to recall to the house that
many business institutions, financial houses and other organizations which have their head offices in the east depend to a very large extent on the west for their well being. That applies particularly to our banks and other financial institutions as well as most of our manufacturing concerns. In the west we have also a seasonal condition which is very extreme, and which brings about other conditions that are difficult to deal with. This was a new country; it developed rapidly, and that rapid expansion probably has been responsible for the heavy borrowings that have been made. These things will adjust themselves, however, when conditions in western Canada improve.
Just in this regard, so that the picture may be more vividly brought to the minds of hon. members of this house, I should like to refer to a few matters of particular importance to our western provinces. For example, I have before me a statement showing the total value of the field crops by provinces for the years 1928 and 1933:
Total, Values
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick.. ..
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia.. .
of Field Crops in Canada, 1928
? 12,444,000
18.824.000
18.275.000
130.363.000
243.768.000
113.492.000
348.586.000
220.786.000
18.465.000
and 1933
1933	Per cent Decrease 1933
? 8,841,000	28.95
11,385,060	39.52
12,396,000	32.17
67,524,000	48.20
124,565,000	48.90
33.188,000	70.76
75,767,000	78.26
76,153,000	65.51
12,118,000	34.37
Taking the three western provinces as a whole we find the reduced value of their field crops to be 7ST, whereas the reduction in the other provinces is only 38-6 per cent. Consequently hon. gentlemen will see what western agricultural conditions with reqpect to their main crop have really meant to the western provinces and can realize the effect those conditions have had on the purchasing power of that section of the country.
One could give the figures for live stock. Just in passing I might mention that in Saskatchewan the capital value of live stock in 1932 was $63,000,000, as compared with $146,000,000 in 1928, a reduction of 56 per cent; Alberta $53,000,000 in 1932 and $120,000,000 in 1928, a reduction of 56 per cent; Manitoba, in 1932, $29,900,000, and in 1928 $70,500,000, a reduction of 57 per cent.
Take minerals, to which I shall not refer in detail except to say that, so far as Manitoba is concerned, it is the one bright spot on the horizon. Manitoba's mineral production has increased in value from $4,186,000 in 1928 to $8,714,000 in 1932, an increase of 108-1 per cent. In Ontario there was a reduced value in mineral production of 20-1 per cent. As I say, that is really one of the bright spots so far as Manitoba is concerned.
With respect ito fisheries the value of the fishery products of British Columbia in 1928 was $26,500,000, and in 1932, $9,900,000, a reduction of 62 per cent. Here again Manitoba is particularly interested. We find that the value of her fishery products, which in 1928 was $2,240,000. had gone down in 1932 to $1,204,000, a decrease of 46 per cent. Ontario had a similar reduction. Manitoba and British Columbia depend to a large extent on this product.
Lumber and sawmill products are of importance particularly to British Columbia. We find tblait their value was reduced from $62,500,000 in 1928 to $26,831,000 in 1932, a
decrease of 57 per cent. Here again Manitoba has suffered a considerable loss in the value

The Address-Mr. Weir (Macdonald)
of -these products, falling from $2,045,000 in 1928 to $547,000 in 1932, a reduction of 73 per cent. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, you can realize that the monetary returns from these natural resources of the western provinces have been very materially depleted so that it has -been impossible for them to meet their obligations in the manner in which they were accustomed to do in the past.
Reference has also been made to 'the financial situation of our various provincial governments. It has been suggested that they have been giving too many public services, and that they were unable t-o pay for them. I want to place on record what 'the government of Manitoba has been doing in the last -three yearn.
In 1931-32 the cost of the controllable services in Manitoba was $9,070,000; in 1932-33 $8,218,000; in 1933-34, $6,852,000. The total reduction in controllable expenditures in Manitoba in 1933-34 as compared with 1930 has been 30-1 per cent. I hope the people of eastern Canada will realize that the government of Manitoba, and the same can be said for every provincial government in the west, as well as for the municipalities and other public bodies, has been making a very definite attempt to curtail expenditures just as far as it was humanly possible to do so. When a reduction of 30 per cent in controllable expenditures of any province is made within three years, I think it will be admitted that they are doing their level best to meet the situation with which they are faced. So I would like to disabuse the mind of my hon. friend from Lanark who suggested that western Canada is not attempting to do her part in carrying the obligations which have been placed upon her. Western Canada, if given the opportunity, will come back and will be that great, open market for the products of eastern Canada when times and conditions improve. I hope that our eastern friends will lend a hand in giving the west that sympathetic cooperation which it is entitled to receive as a part of this great dominion.
I wish now to direct my remarks to a few things which were said by my very good friend from Souris (Mr. Willis) in the rough and tumble speech which he made the other evening. He seemed to be particularly concerned over the political designation of some hon. members on this side of the house. Personally I am not very much concerned what I am called so long as I am not called a Tory. I would much prefer to be called a Liberal-Progressive than a Liberal-Conservative. To me the calling of a person a Liberal-Conservative is stretching the point just a little too far. The points of view of Liberals and Con-
servatives are so much in conflict that one wonders why such a title should be maintained. Perhaps my hon. friend from Souris is beginning to realize the ridiculousness of his situation when he attempts to get himself known as a new type of Conservative, as reported in the speech he made a few days ago.
My bon. friend from Souris in his speech the other evening made a very interesting admission, one which I am sure his constituents will not look upon with favour. Referring to tariffs, he said the other evening;
We in western Canada-
I assume he means the Conservatives- -accept the inevitability of protection because we know that in the St. Lawrence basin there is to be found fifty-five per cent of the Canadian population.
I am rather surprised that he should let a slip like that go by. Personally, I do not accept the inevitability of protection, and I propose to use what little influence I have in attempting to show the people of Manitoba just what tariff protection means to them. My hon. friend then harped upon the theme he has been expounding in this house for some time and attempts to prove that tariffs were lower under the Conservative administration than they were under the Liberal. In bo doing he takes the value of goods imported together with the actual amount of duty collected thereon, and from that he tries to establish an average ad valorem rate of duty. He knows his statement is fallacious and misleading to the highest degree.
I have taken the trouble to look up some figures in this regard and I propose to selt them out. The year 1922 was really the last fiscal year in which the policies of the Conservative party were in effect. I find that the total imports for that year were valued at $747,800.000, and the duty collected thereon was-$121,480,000; 1930 was the last year in which Liberal policies were in effect for a full fiscal year. The total imports for that year were valued at $1,248,000,000 and the duty collected was $199,000,000; 1933 is the last fiscal year in which the policies of the present Conservative government were in operation. The total imports for that year were valued at $406,-
200,000	and the duty collected was $77,000,000.
If we deduct the value of alcoholic beverages and the duty collected -thereon, we find that in 1922 the ad valorem rate of duty collected was 15-3 per cent, while in 1930 it was 14-5 per cent. In 1933, we have to add an excise tax of three per cent upon the duty paid value of the goods imported, which brings the ad

The Address-Mr. Weir (Macdonald)
valorem rate for 1933 up to 21-9 per cent. The calculations made by my hon. friend are a bit astray.
In addition, he leaves out many things which he knows should be considered in arriving at a fair calculation of a tariff structure. He knows that there are several factors which should be considered if one is to be fair in this matter. He knows that if a high rate of duty is placed against goods, they are shut out of the country, the only goods that will come in are those classed as luxury goods which pay a comparatively high rate of duty compared to their actual value. He knows also that under our system of ad valorem and specific duties price changes affect materially the amount of customs duties collected as compared with the value of the goods. He reviews a period of declining prices and compared it with a period of rising prices in an effort to make people believe that he was working out a fair average of tariffs.
Let me illustrate what I have in mind. I will take an extreme case, such as 100 tons of steel rails valued at $50 per ton and paying a specific duty of $5 per ton. The value of these goods would be $5,000, the duity collected would be $500 and the ad valorem rate would be ten per cent. But assume that prices have changed and the same 100 tons of rails are valued at $25 per ton, a total value of $2,500. The same specific rate applies. The duty collected is still $500 but the ad valorem rate has increased to 20 per cent. I assume my hon. friend would say that this represents an increase of 100 per cent in the tariff. He did not take into consideration the period of great industrial expansion which we had during the war when a large amount of raw material came into the country at a very low rate of duty or free of duty and was later reexported. My contention is that it is impossible to compare the ad valorem rates of duty on goods coming into this country at any particular time with the rate on goods coming in at another time.
I should like to give the actual tariff rates which applied on certain classes of goods which are of particular interest to western Canada as a whole and to the people in the constituency of my hon. friend as well. For example, take mowers, binders, reapers, cultivators, harrows, horse-rakes, seed drills, manure spreaders and weeders. In 1921 the British preferential rate on this item was 124 per cent; the intermediate rate was 124 per cent and the general 124 per cent. In 1930 the British preferential rate was free, the intermediate was 6 per cent and the general 6 per cent. In 1933, the British preferential was
still free, but very little if any of this class of goods is brought in from Great Britain. In that year the intermediate rate was 15 per cent and the general, 25 per cent. The greater proportion of these goods come under the general rate. The same thing applies to plows and threshing machines. In 1921 the British preferential rate on this item was 12J per cent; the intermediate, 17J per cent and the general, 174 per cent. In 1930 the rates were free, 10 per cent and 10 per cent and in 1933, free, 15 per cent and 25 per cent. The same thing applies to nearly all other classes of farm machinery brought into the country. In the case of spraying machines, fruit and vegetable grading machines, pruning hooks and pruning shears, in 1921 the British preferential rate was 124 per cent, the intermediate 20 per cent and the general 20 per cent. In 1930, the rates were free, 10 per cent and 10 per cent respectively while in 1933 they were free, 15 per cent and 25 per cent. In the case of well drilling machinery of a kind not manufactured in Canada, the rates for 1921 were 15 per cent British preferential, 25 per cent under the intermediate and 274 per cent under the general. In 1930 the rates were free across the board. In the case of machinery for concentration of ores, in 1921 the British preferential rate was 15 per cent; intermediate, 25 per cent and general, 274 per cent, while in 1930 the rates were 10 per cent, 15 per cent and 20 per cent respectively. Mine hoists, of a class not made in Canada: in 1921 the British preferential rate was 15 per cent; intermediate, 25 per cent, and general 274 per cent, while in 1930 the rates were free, 5 per cent and 10 per cent respectively. In 1921 the rates on engines for fishermen's boats were British preferential, 15 per cent; intermediate, 25 per cent and general 274 per cent; in 1930 under the British preference they were free; under the intermediate tariff 124 per cent and under ttihe general 15; and in 1933 the figures were free, 124 per cent and 15 per cent. I could enumerate a large number of others. Hon gentlemen will recall that a duty of 25 per cent was placed on cream separators and 10 per cent on barbed wire. I do not think therefore that my hon. friend's tariff averages will amount to much when he tells the people the tariffs that have been imposed specifically on the various articles in the tariff schedule, particularly those affecting the farmers of western Canada. That is my point. The averages do not signify anything but merely confuse the whole issue so that people do not thoroughly understand it. One should at all times give the actual rate of duty if one wishes to be
442	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Weir (Macdonald)
fair in this regard. I should certainly expect that the hon. gentleman would be just as much interested in making it possible for the farmers of the west to receive their goods at as low a cost as possible, instead of accepting the inevitability of protection. I suppose he means by that that he is not going to labour the matter very much inasmuch as he realizes the preponderance of population in eastern Canada to be the determining factor in such matters. For this reason he is going to be content to let the inevitable continue. Personally I am not going to take that position; I refuse to accept the inevitability of protection in this regard. I propose to use all the influence I have to bring about a reduction in tariffs. Surely the hon. gentleman must realize that even his leader admitted the injustice of the tariff when he introduced the five cents per bushel bonus on wheat, describing it as a compensating adjustment for western agriculture. Instead of accepting the inevitability of protection with respect to tariffs; he should take his place alongside the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stitt), who made a courageous speech in this house the other afternoon, he would then be making a real contribution to the house and to the country.
I wish now to direct my remarks to the wheat agreement. I view this agreement a little differently to the way in which some hon. gentlemen in this house regard it.
I do not think anyone likes the agreement;
I do not think that even the government likes it. I do not see how any person in Canada can view with favour a reduction in wheat acreage. More than that, in my opinion it does not matter whether the agreement is made effective or not; natural causes will carry out the purpose of the agreement whether it is adopted or not. Moreover I cannot see that we are going to be able at the rate of shipments to-day to come up to the quota allowed under the agreement this year, namely, 200 million bushels, without forcing sales and thereby depression prices. So far no machinery has been set up to handle it, and apparently it will be left to take care of itself, so that we shall still have a large carryover next year. In 1934-35 we are to have a quota of 15 per cent less than the average of 1931-33, which is estimated to give us a quota of from 263 million to 294 million bushels. I still feel that we shall have difficulty, in shipping this quantity of grain even in that crop year. So that we are likely to arrive at the end of 1935 still holding a considerable quantity of wheat.
I doubt whether the quota system so far suggested can be worked back to the farmer,

and if an attempt is made to carry it out it will require a terrific amount of supervision to carry it out. On the other hand, if I could be convinced that this wheat agreement would be lived up to, not only to the letter but in the spirit, by all the countries subscribing to it, and if it could be demonstrated to be a step towards a genuine form of international cooperation, then I think that Canada should play her part in the matter. But I do think that the machinery so far suggested is not sufficient to carry out the agreement. It seems to me that it will be unfair to the producers if an attempt is made to carry it out without some additional machinery in the form of a national marketing organization. Suppose we come to the end of the crop year 1935, when the agreement expires, and our own crop is going on the market. We might have a big crop in this country and the tendency might be to keep prices down. If it were found later on, through the working of the agreement or otherwise, that the world's surplus of wheat had been considerably reduced, with the resulting increased prices later on, we should find this situation then, that the farmer would be delivering grain in the fall at low prices while someone else would be getting the advantage of the later increase. The same thing happened in connection with the London agreement with respect to hogs this fall. I saw many farmers last fall delivering hogs at 4 and 5 cents per pound, only to find when the agreement became more effective, hogs increased in price to almost 9 cents per pound on the Winnipeg market. It is hardly fair to place one class of people in a preferred position, leaving another class subject to the ordinary fluctuations of prices when normal conditions do not prevail.
There are several other factors in regard to which I think it is particularly necessary for us to have information before the agreement is implemented. For instance, I should like to know on what basis the figures have been calculated as affecting other countries entering into this agreement. I think it is also essential to know just what the situation is as regards rye. Wheat and rye go together so far as the old country production is concerned. I am told that the rye production in the European countries has been materially reduced at the expense of wheat. Now, if they reduce wheat, what will they do with rye? In my own province there is durum wheat to be taken into account. I presume it is included in the total amount contemplated in the agreement. Durum is used for different purposes. I am told that the Italian

The Address-Mr. Weir (Macdonald)
people in particular are making very high class macaroni and spaghetti products out of our durum wheat, whereas our Canadian manufacturers of similar products are continuing to use our ordinary wheat.
The other day the Prime Minister showed to the house a poster from France indicating, that the French people were attempting to carry out the spirit of the wheat agreement.
I am prepared to accept that. I also saw that poster some time ago and I am told that in addition to placing that poster in all the post offices throughout France, the FVench have enacted legislation whereby they will penalize any farmer who breaks up any new land and sows it to wheat. If that step has been taken with the idea of carrying out the spirit of the agreement, well and good, but we should watch very closely to see whether that is the situation. I accept in good faith the propaganda they are putting out, but we all know the people of France are to-day beginning to protest against the high taxes they are paying because of the high duties imposed on wheat, so that these matters must be watched carefully.
There are other matters that should be kept in mind in the carrying out of this agreement. It is not sufficient to let it work alone; we should at all times be endeavouring to find new uses for wheat. I am told on good authority that, for example, in this country 35,000,000 bushels of wheat are being fed to poultry. One can hardly realize that such a quantity could be used for that purpose. There must be other uses to which wheat can be put and may I say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) that a very definite effort should be made to popularize the use of wheat throughout the world. Other concerns who are using other kinds of food products put on extensive advertising campaigns to demonstrate new uses for the different products they have, yet I have failed to see any definite or constructive effort to sell wheat or to popularize it in other countries or even in this. Would the General Motors company be content simply to send its automobiles and trucks over to Liverpool or some other market and leave them in a warehouse there hoping the people would come in and buy them? Certainly not. We must get a definite, active campaign started to popularize the use of wheat and make everybody eat just as much of it as possible.
I wish to repeat that if an attempt is going to be made to carry out the wheat agreement there must be added to it or made a part of it some form of national marketing organization. I would hate to see the marketing of
grain left to a wide open speculative system and the farmer subjected to the abuses that might follow it. I know it will be difficult to carry it out; I am afraid the situation at the present time is such that there may be a disposition at least on the part of some, because of what has been happening, to increase rather than to decrease their acreage. On the other band, however, I feel that at least for this year it is not going to be necessary actually to set up any machinery to carry out the wheat agreement, the simple reason being that natural causes such as drought, grasshoppers, lack of feed and lack of power to put in a crop, will reduce the acreage to the desired extent.
Reference is made in the speech from the throne to the creation of a central bank, all parties being agreed on such a policy. I do not in any sense feel competent to deal with a matter of this kind, but there are two points that stand out strongly in my mind with regard to it. In the first place, if our monetary policy has such a vital effect on the livelihood and welfare of the people, it seems logical that our currency should be nationally controlled. Secondly, with all the ramifications and the sad experiences that Canlada has had in the field of international exchange in the last few years, it would seem proper that we should have a national bank to speak for all of Canada, with respect to international monetary affairs. I feel, however, some people have received a wrong impression on what a central bank will do; there are some who think that simply by the establishment of a central bank, credit will be easier for them. That is not the case. A central bank, government owned, will have to conduct its banking business on just as sound a basis 'as our private banks have done in the past. The creation of a central bank will not make interest rates any easier for the 'ordinary individual, and as long as government and other public bodies continue to pay high raltes of interest, just so long will the individual have to do likewise.
Another important matter that arises in connection with our banks is this: many directors are also directors of other corporations. I am just wondering if the ordinary individual reoeives the same consideration as that accorded to these other corporations. It is important that that point should be brought forward. Further, the inference has gone abroad that the lack of bank accommodation, particularly to farmers, has been because of heavy losses that those institutions have taken in the agricultural business. In the revision
The Address-Mr. Fournier

of these 'bank charters the situation, with respect to bank losses should be definitely brought out because I doubt very much whether their losses have been sustained in the agricultural business.


Mr. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Hull) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased, indeed, at the outset of my remarks on the address, to have the opportunity of extending my sincere congratulations to the three members elected since the last session. If we glance over the various sections of this country, we note that the people seem to be unanimous in censuring the policy of this government. In Saskatchewan, the 'Conservatives have almost been entirely wiped out; in the constituency of Mackenzie, the party to my left has been crushed and a Liberal has been elected by an almost incredible majority, in Quebec, the Yamaska election gave the same result; in the Maritime provinces, the Liberal candidate carried Restigouche-Mada-waska by almost an incredible majority. This seems to be a harbinger of the people's feelings. The nation which had no opportunity, previous to these three elections, to express its wishes, has just given its verdict which condemns without a shadow of doubt the party in office, and in my opinion, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) should in the near future appeal to the people. The members elected have always been Liberal, are highly gifted and appreciated by their constituency; I, therefore, associate myself with all in extending to them our sincere congratulations and our wishes for a brilliant career in the house.
Undoubtedly there exists a crisis the like of which has never been felt for a number of centuries. It is world wide and no country can boast of having escaped its consequences. We are passing through an era of change and evolution and all nations harbour in their midst, to-day, a restless element, dissatisfied with their lot, wondering whether to continue the capitalist system or adopt new ideas. In Europe, various nations have discontinued the parliamentary system to adopt either fascism of nazism or bolshevism or again other forms of government unknown in America. Within a year the United States themselves, without entirely doing away with the capitalist system, have thought fit to change it so as to give to the state a greater control over the economic life of the country, a control extending to trade, industry and to all other fields of national activity. In this country we have continued our

capitalist system without change. In my opinion, it is still the best for a young country like ours, considering its relative situation; however, I admit, with many others, that the abuses of this system are responsible for the present state of things.
Undoubtedly, Canada like all other countries, suffers from depression and unemployment. All admit that we have unemployment. Perhaps, we disagree sometimes as to its spread; we certainly do not agree as to the remedies to apply in order to relieve the situation. Within the last three years, unemployment has certainly spread in our country. The only remedies have consisted in government loans, new taxation, in money expended on public works, contributions to distressed provinces or doles.
Public works were the first which the government endeavoured to apply, all know with what success. It was an exceedingly expensive method. Proportionately it gave the least results for the money expended in order to relieve unemployment. This method was dropped by the government in order to adopt purely and simply the dole system and charitable means.
To-day, the dominion, provincial and municipal governments carry on the dole systems, giving from hand to hand to those in distress. However, this system has very little improved the situation of those who are in want. I have but to point, as an example, to the city I represent to prove that, notwithstanding the large amounts expended in our midst to relieve distress, we are, more than ever, faced with unemployment and poverty. At the 1931 session, 2,000 persons, in Hull, were depending on government assistance. The number has increased to 6,500 within three years. Notwithstanding public works carried out, the number of unemployed has increased and will continue to do so, unless a remedy is found to bring new life to industries which give work to our people.
At present, in the city of Hull, with a population of 29,000 souls, we support 6,500 persons, at a cost of $30,000 per month, supplied by the Dominion and provincial governments and one-third by the municipality. We have no choice, we >must make a loan of nearly $600,000 to meet the outlay necessitated by unemployment, public works and the funding of our floating debt. And I must confess that, at the last projected public sale of properties, the list comprised 841 properties to be sold for municipal taxes. This does not include vacant lots but only

The Address-Mr. Fournier
houses. We have reached the point where certain property holders prefer demolishing their houses than pay their taxes or run the risk of having to pay higher taxes.
Do not imagine that I blame this government alone for such a state of things. The situation existing in Hull, is that, I think, of all other cities in the Dominion. It is the result of many past events, it is the consequence, probably, of the inconsiderate increase of the national debt, of our shortcomings, and I think it would be ridiculous to blame one man or a party for what we are reaping to-day. However, I believe that the party in office has not put into practice any policy which might relieve the situation or uproot the evil.
So far as unemployment, suggestions were made by both the Liberal party and the party to my left. The government did not follow these suggestions and has not succeeded in improving the situation. Why this obstinacy in refusing to appoint a federal commission, comprising the representatives of all public corporations, who are familiar with the conditions existing throughout the country, so as to cooperate with the Dominion, provincial and municipal governments in the distribution of relief, the methods to be adopted to find work for those who are unemployed and thereby improve the lot of those in distress?
As a permanent measure, the enactment of an unemployment insurance was often suggested. This unemployment insurance scheme has not been carried out or been considered! or even communicated to the house, as a measure, by the government. It is, perhaps, difficult to put it into practice at a time of crisis. However, if we delay too long and prosperity returns, we shall soon have forgotten our present hardships and we shall pigeon-hole a measure which should be enacted in a country which seeks progress, in a young country like ours and which may become very prosperous.
The present act to relieve unemployment contains provisions in connection with the back-to-the land movement. This scheme can certainly be very helpful to those who, in our cities, depend, to-day, on the dole. Again, this evening I came across a last year's report on the subject. In Ontario, 329 families, comprising 1,763 persons were settled by the government on lands in New Ontario. Those who do not yet suffer from the get-rich-quick ailment-an ailment which seems to have spread in certain sections of our country -those who have sufficient courage to forsake
city life so as to settle on new lands, will certainly find there, a home, fuel and food.
If it be not a luxurious life, it is certainly a healthy one, the one our forebears were familiar with and which gave them the means of raising large healthy and bright families.
I am aware that it is difficult to persuade a great number of city folks to give up the easy city life to settle on lands and undergo the hardships of a settler; however, I think that the government, through advertising and giving greater assistance to those who wish to settle on lands, should endeavour to increase the number of those who are happy in the country. In Quebec, it seems that this return to-the-land movement is the one which benefits most of the people.
I, therefore, congratulate the government for having thought of setting aside an amount for the back-to-the-land scheme. However,
I request the government to decrease, if not to completely eliminate the quota which municipalities must furnish in the settlement of these families.
The financial situation of towns in Quebec -I am not acquainted with the situation of towns outside of this province-is such that our municipal councils find it impossible, at present, to furnish one-third of the amount required to settle these people on farms. Both Dominion and provincial governments should, in my humble opinion, share the cost of settling these people. Colonization is not within the piu-view of municipalities, but of provincial and Dominion governments. Why then not unburden the municipalities of this weight, when they are almost faced with bankruptcy? I feel certain that the people of 'Canada would be grateful to the federal and provincial governments, if such a measure were enacted.
May I now refer to our trade. I shall not quote any figures, as numerous speakers who have preceded me have done so in their speeches. Statistics have their importance; however, it is said that they can be twisted as one wishes. I prefer expressing the views of the people, with whom we come in contact daily, in connection with the present situation, the way the country is managed and what is expected from our legislators. There is no doubt that, in value, our trade imports and exports have decreased by half. No one denies that. As to the figures, the Bureau of Statistics proves it beyond doubt. Has it decreased in the same proportion as to volume? Without quoting figures, I think the ratio is the same. If not, how explain the

The Address-Mr. Bouchard
considerable deficits of our transportation systems, either by water or railway? If the same quantity of goods had been carried during these last years, no doubt the revenues of our transportation systems would have been larger than they are. To Liberals and serious people, the cause of these deficits is necessarily to be found in the fact that the present tariffs have hindered the expansion of our trade abroad. Reciprocity was discussed last year; I trust that the government this year will negotiate such a treaty with the United States.
I have, sir, in my few remarks, endeavoured to express my views on present conditions. We take a great interest in all these problems and I trust this government will take the necessary measures to bring back prosperity to this country.


Mr. GEORGES BOUCHARD (Kamou-raska):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to say a few words before this largely depopulated house at this late hour of this parliamentary week it occurs to me to remark upon the fact that the government this year could not draw upon newly elected members in choosing the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Of course that is due to no mere whim of fate but rather to a decided expression of the opinion of the public at large. The government should not forget the old saying, after the three elections that have been lost, that three is a crowd. We all expect that the day will soon come when this will be demonstrated.
Both the mover (Mr. Gofoeil) and the seconder (Mr. Barber) of the motion have acquitted themselves well, and what they lack in ingenuousness they make up, perhaps, in political ability. They have demonstrated, it is true, a youthful faith in the policies of their government, a faith, however, which is not in keeping with the thought of the people at large.
My congratulations naturally go to the three newly-elected members. They have championed the rights of the people; they have championed Liberal thought, and they were all elected by large majorities, which is a sign of the times. The enticements of the spider which succeeds in catching the fly in its web are nothing in comparison with the enticing promises that were made during the last election to induce the people to vote for 
the Conservatives. Statesmen in these times I know are not sleeping on beds of roses. But instead of trying to apply some permanent cure to our diseases it seems to me they merely resort to all sorts of expedients, they are like a little boy playing with a yo-yo, drawing taxes up and letting them out again. The palliatives applied by the administration have accentuated the disease instead of curing it, and indeed no serious effort has been made to remedy the situation. The country is entitled to something more than mere palliatives. Those who have gained power through extravagant promises should not be surprised at evidence of an extravagant distrust on the part of the people.
I do not propose to deal at any great length, Mr. Speaker, with the different proposals contained in the speech from the throne. I shall not give any figures; as a matter of fact I think they have all been given. With his usual mastery of facts my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) has dealt with this question in a very illuminating way, so much so that he has silenced my hon. friends opposite. The speech from the throne, in common with the four previous speeches, is a masterpiece of illusive statements and evasive hopes. The popular mind cannot be changed at once by glowing prophecies of instant recovery, without some more substantial evidence being offered. The supreme efforts of the government in its dying days-I hope-will not revive the public confidence so widely shaken by nearly four years of inefficient administration.
Perhaps you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, when I state that the economic depression has brought about a greater intellectual ferment, with a natural desire for new ideas and a greater disposition towards the exchange of views. Unfortunately these new suggestions have not gained the support of the government benches, where a lack of cooperation is obvious. In their public utterances hon. gentlemen opposite charge us with a lack of cooperation, as though the official opposition were in power. Well, we are here to offer our suggestions and it is up to the government to put them into effect. With no desire to claim credit for a panoramic mind or a quack cure-all remedy I wish to express a few reflections at random, such as might be uttered by a habitant looking

The Address-Mr. Bouchard
over his country. Coming from the province with the highest proportion of spinning wheels and the smallest- proportion of steering wheels I am bound to be rated as a traditional, not to say a fossilized, old-fashioned type, but it is clear to me that having regard to the impulse of industrial, commercial and financial forces the world today is a world in compartments, more mechanical than thoughtful. An attempt has been made to build sky-high a great industrial tower, a Babel, which has brought about a confusion of languages, and in all this turmoil the dominating voice is that of the bankers, who form a kind of moneyarchy. In this period of turmoil, which has been accentuated by this government, the financial man is speaking one language, the farmer another and the labouring man another, and with the present government in power there is very little hope for any complete understanding.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that it is the duty of public spirited men to offer their contributions when the ship of state is struggling against a heavy sea. It is not only for the crew but also for the passengers-or the back benchers-to lend a helping hand. Unless capitalism, which is no evil in itself, is rationalized, socialized, humanized and ruralized we do not know where the ship of state will land. What I claim for agriculture is not for mere class advantage but for the good of the country. During this present crisis the farmers have given the world an example of fecundity, perseverance and endurance, but with the policies of this government complicating the situation the future is very cloudy. By increasing the tariff this government has increased the price of practically every commodity the farmer has to buy and has made it more and more difficult for the farmer to trade with the world. The tariff on cream separators, barbed wire, fertilizer, cotton goods and so many other commodities has not been put there to help the farmer. A government which allows manufacturers to pile up dividends in the face of farmers putting in long hours of labour on the land should not be surprised at the results of the recent by-elections.
The other day when the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) was so ably winding up the debate on his motion for shorter hours of labour I was reflecting on the force of his arguments, which were not less convincing than those advanced by the hon.
member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan). I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that shorter hours are bound to come with the ever increasing efficiency of machinery, but this is only one feature, and it should be interwoven with a scheme which at the same time would afford similar advantages to the workers on the soil. Let us get all the protection possible for the manufacturers, also all possible advantages for the labour men, such as shorter hours, a minimum wage, unemployment insurance, and so on. To all these policies I do not object at all, but if, while the government is applying these policies, the farmer is neglected by the government as he is at the present time, the evils from which we are suffering will only be increased. Today the farmer is over-neglected and the manufacturer is over-protected, and what is the final result? The present crisis, I submit, is more than anything else a question of unemployment, and unemployment is a result, more than anything else, of a disinclination to the land. But what is worse, this government, not satisfied with having plagued the farmer with high tariffs, taxes on sugar and postage stamps, sales taxes and so on, is asking the farmer to pay for that for which he is not responsible.
I think you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that unemployment is a by-product of industry, and now the government is turning to the farmer and asking him to pay his share of the unemployment in industry. Professor H. E. Armstrong writes in the Sunday Times of recent date:
We have too long made manufacturing industry the prime object of our national being. We have largely sold man's birthright, agriculture, for no mere mess of potage, but for mechanisms with which we can accomplish almost anything that we desire to do, even to the extent of making ourselves all but unnecessary. We call this rationalization. .Nothing less rational could well be.
We have deprived the farmer of his markets by our excessive tariffs and are now asking him to pay a large Share of the taxation to cure unemployment. But that is not all. While the government of my province has spent up to the end of the year 1932 over $150,000 in premiums to the farmers to help them buy fertilizer, at the same time this government imposes a tax in the form of a tariff on the fertilizer which the farmer uses when it enters this country manufactured. I agree with Professor Albert Einstein who,

The Address-Mr. Bouchard
addressing the students of California Institute of Technology, as reported in the New York Times of February 25, 1931, said:
Why does this magnificent applied science which saves work and makes life easier bring us so little happiness? The simple answer runs, because we have not yet learned to make sensible use of it.
I am not against progress, science or mechanical development, but we must make a very wise use of these things. I am not in antagonism to the interests of labour and of the city dwellers. Far from it; I invite them to realize as has been said authoritatively, '"not charity alone but fraternity is indeed calculated to remove the mountains of misunderstanding that all too often divide us."
In a review of a book recently written by Mr. Wallace Brett Dontham I read:
Migration of farmers to cities will go on in view of the enhanced competition of foreign agricultural producers and the effect of better machinery, but industry will not offer indefinitely increased employment either to them or to others, because the technique of production is likely to keep up its advance even at an accelerated pace. The wants of the population will lag behind productive capacity since new articles or inventions for popular consumption will not be found in sufficient number or make their way to popularity quickly enough to take up the increasing capacity of industry.
Sooner or later, and I think the sooner the better, with the ever increasing efficiency of machinery, we will have to turn to the land in order to find occupation for our unemployed. We must turn to the land not only for the benefit of those who are now unemployed in tlhe city. But before dealing with that question further I Should like to illustrate by a few examples the discrepancy that has always existed between this government's treatment of the rural population and of the urban population.
In my constituency, where my people have contributed a large share of the revenues of this country, what is happening? We have contributed all sorts of taxes. We have a few hundreds of unemployed. But are they taken care of by this government? We have three projects in view at the present time. The first is in connection with the wharf at Riviere Ouelle. For many years this wharf had been kept in good repair. It was very necessary for this constituency but it was partly destroyed by a storm. We expected that this matter would receive some consideration from the government, but it has not. On many occasions when the estimates were being considered I have reminded the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) of the necessity

of repairing this wharf. I have written a number of letters which I shall not take the itrouble to read to-night. Notwithstanding all this, nothing was done. Under the good administration of the previous government there used to be something like $20,000 spent m my constituency. The expenditure of this money took care of the floating population of labour.
The second project is in connection with the draining of the Riviere Ouelle peat marsh. When this marsh is cleared and properly drained it will allow for the cultivation of about 5,000 acres sufficient to take care of from 25 to 30 families of unemployed. We asked the government for a little help in this connection but for some reason it was cancelled.
The third project had been approved by the provincial government and had been submitted to the consideration of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) under schedule number 34. I refer to the straightening of the roadway, the building of culverts and so on, on the highway from St. Alexandre to Fort Kent. I wrote the best letters I could to the minister and told him that I desired to meet him in order to discuss the whole matter, but nothing was done. This work would take care of practically all the unemployed in my constituency.
I have mentioned these three cases in order to illustrate my argument that while the unemployed are taken care of in the cities, not the slightest attention is given to those in the rural districts. During the last calendar year only a trifle of perhaps $2,000 was spent in my constituency. I do not want to antagonize city members, but I desire to illustrate my point. There is a continual drift of country people towards the cities. This is a social disease and in an effort to cure it our longsighted statesmen claim that there is only one remedy-back to the land. But still they are inducing the country people to come to the cities by their neglect during times of stress. There never was a time when the government would receive such overwhelming support for the building up of a practical world system as the present. If the opportunity is neglected, the failure will be so much the greater.
Instead of remedies we are given promises. The following appeared in the Evening Citizen of February 7:
Defeatism
Premier Bennett addressed the Toronto Board of Trade as a chastened leader last Monday when he said:

The Address-Mr. Reid
"I would like to promise you a spectacular move that would make you hip-hurrah-but, gentlemen, you did too much of that a few years ago, forgetting that some day the bills would have to be paid."
We did that because we believed his promise that we would have prosperity. He continues:
We cannot offer you anything spectacular- nothing but thrift and hard work.
There were many of my constituents whom I could not convince to vote for me. They believed in these wonderful promises. When they came to me, I told them frankly; "My dear people, we have a crisis and you have to be thrifty; you must save your money." They were told by the other side that if Mr. Bennett was returned to power there would be work for every one. They replied to me: "He is a wealthy man and he can tell us a trick or two about how to become wealthy ourselves."


Mr. DUPRE:: The period of time to which the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) was referring was that before 1930.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: The promise was distinctly made to us, and now he comes before the same people with statements far different. I do not doubt his sincerity; I think he was sincere, but he failed. It is not my fault, and perhaps it is not his; but his policies were not proper, and he now comes to us and says he has nothing spectacular to offer. Everything was spectacular in 1930, and now there is nothing for it but thrift and hard work. One thing however is now left out-iron heelism. May I say that we need no new Moses to lead us out of our plight. The cure is the application of common sense and the old and tried principle of freer trade and economy.
Let us consider for a moment something that goes deeper than this. As I said at the beginning, under the present administration of the world, every country is over-urbanized, over-industrialized and under-ruralized. What is the remedy? Expansion of farming. The land always remains the safe refuge. I know that it will bring a smile to the lips of industrially-minded people, and it may seem paradoxical, when the Prime Minister of the country is talking about reducing wheat acreage, to suggest as a remedy the expansion of farming. But the fact is that agriculture is Canada's fundamental industry, and when I say this I am not suggesting an increase in farm lands but an increase in the farming population of the country. I repeat, with the ever-increasing efficiency of machinery how can 74726-29
you take care not only of the unemployed of to-day but of the unemployed of the future? We have receded too fast from a civilization which was rural towards a civilization which is over-industrialized. Perhaps I might quote a paragraph or so from an article from its Dublin correspondent, under the heading, The Great Safeguard, which appeared in The London Times of January 31, 1932:
With eight persons on the land for one in manufacturing industry we have escaped the burden of direct unemployment and urban distress. The economic hardihood of the small farmer and his family has been the country's great safeguard and has enabled it so far to battle with the storm.
Let me for a moment discuss the great cry, "back to the land." The most pressing aspect of unemployment in the future will be to find occupation for the people outside large scale industry, and therefore "back to the land" is the watchword. There is at least a redeeming feature in the present crisis: people are thinking more rurally. I do not quarrel with those who advertise the back to the land movement but I doubt its success except in special cases, and I am sure that when the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) spoke about the back to the land movement he had colonization more in mind. I am strongly in favour of colonization, but the back to the land proposal is a terrible indictment of our social system.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: In rising to make a few remarks in regard to the speech from the throne I wish to discuss some items therein affecting particularly British Columbia. The present speech, like many of its predecessors, contains some platitudes and some proposed legislation, and in the first place I wish to deal with the trade agreements. I notice that every hon. member on the other side who has spoken has taken time to put before the house figures showing that the trade with Great Britain has greatly increased under the present administration as compared with our trade heretofore. These figures are put forward in phrases that are very cleverly drawn up, because I find on page 128 of Canada 1934, an official handbook issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, the statement that Canada's total trade for the fiscal year 1933 amounted to over $880,000,000 a reduction of 23-9 per cent compared with 1932 and 48-5 per cent compared with 1931, but this is the sentence that interests me particularly:
In spite of the large decrease in tne past three years total trade is now nearly eight times that at confederation.

The Address-Mr. Reid

Surely that is going back pretty far for a comparison. Hon. gentlemen are endeavouring to convey to the country the impression that since the Ottawa agreements have been put into effect Canada's trade has been just wonderful. But if one examines the figures closely one must be impressed with certain facts. Granted that the trade with Great Britain has increased, why should it not increase?-because during the first two years after our hon. friends opposite came into office, that trade had greatly decreased and the trade of Canada generally had gone down to the lowest level in many years. So, if trade between Great Britain and Canada has increased, this is no wonder when you have in mind the low ebb it had reached at least prior to 1933. I would point out that our trade with Great Britain in relation to our total trade is really less than it was in 1929 when the Liberal party was in power. That is significant. In listening to speeches delivered by hon. gentlemen opposite bolstering up the trade figures, I was reminded of a man whose business in 1930 amounted to $10,000, which in 1931 had dropped to 81,000 and in 1932 had increased to $2,000. In making out his report to the directors he stated that during 1932 the business of the firm had increased 100 per cent. That is just as good an argument as telling the house and the country that Canada's trade with Great Britain has increased, because we know that it was at the lowest ebb it had reached in many a long year.
I listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), both in the house and in Vancouver, giving prices of agricultural products in this country as against those across the line and elsewhere, and pointing out that we in Canada were receiving higher prices for our products than they were in the United States and, I believe, in some other countries. When he was quoting prices on certain agricultural products affecting British Columbia, particularly eggs, I noticed that when he picked out the prices and the cities in which those prices prevailed, he compared prices in Montreal, which is, by the way, a cold city, with those in Kansas City, which has, I believe, a warm climate. But he omitted to mention that in the state of Washington, which is adjacent to British Columbia, they were at the time paying two cents a dozen more than was being received in our province. If he had cited the prices prevailing in two contiguous areas with similar climatic conditions, the comparison would have been

much fairer than one based on Montreal and Kansas City.
I shall, however, mention prices of some other agricultural products in British Columbia, and I shall ask hon. members to tell me after I am through where the farmer is getting less. Just before I left for Ottawa a farmer close to me had three cows to sell. I am aware that cow meat is not the very best; we all know that prime fat steers are the best for the market. These cows ran from 1,000 to 1,200 pounds live weight, and he was offered 815 for the three. Another farmer close to me had two cows for sale when the dealer came around and he wns offered $3 for the two. I well remember the farmer's remark to the buyer; >he said: "Well, I 'have never sold a cow for $1.50 in my life before, but I will tell you what I will do; I will sell you one for S3 and give you the other for nothing." I mention this just, as the Prime Minister has often stated, to keep the record straight.
I am going to cite a case in regard to fruit and this time I shall not confine it to the Fraser valley and Vancouver. This information was given to me by a fruit grower at a place called, I believe Fauquier, while I was going through the interior during the last election. He shipped seventeen boxes of pears to Medicine Hat. I would like the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw) to hear this. This man was charged $13.18 for freight, and after all charges were paid he received only $2.29 out of which he had to pay for the nails and the boxes. The result was that seventeen boxes of bartlett pears netted him exactly six cents. One does not quote these figures with any degree of pride. Why should he? Why should any hon. member come here and glory because the farmers or any other producers are getting low prices? I am mentioning these facts because we have heard so much about prices in Canada being higher than in the United States or other countries. I am citing figures on which I have the facts, and I ask hon. members to tell me where farmers have been getting for that class of product less than the prices I have mentioned.
In the legislation that we expect will be introduced by the government at this session, I am interested particularly at this time in that with regard to marketing, and I should like to spend a few moments in dealing with it. Let me say in passing that I hope the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) and the Prime Minister will expedite as much as they can the marketing legislation, particularly as it affects the milk producers of the Fraser valley. My reason for asking this is that we

The Address-Mr. Reid
in British Columbia, and particularly in the Fraser valley, are anxiously awaiting the proposed legislation because, if it is unduly delayed, it will mean that no amending legislation can be put through by the provincial government this session to enable the dairy farmers of the Fraser valley to take advantage of any dominion legislation in order to improve the present condition and prices there. For the benefit of the house I should like to give a resume of the conditions affecting milk producers in that area.
There are some 3,000 milk farmers in the Fraser valley and the lower mainland, owning approximately 45.000 cows, the yield being roughly speaking, 7,000,000 pounds of butter fat per annum. Of that amount only 3,000,000 pounds are sold in the shape of fluid milk which has been selling to the householder for nine cents a quart, the present price now being, I believe, one cent higher. The remaining 4.000,000 pounds must be sold in the form of butter, cheese, evaporated milk and other products which sell to the householder for about half the price of milk. The milk farmer is receiving two and a half cents a quart for his pool price, but Vancouver milk prices are nine cents a quart delivered at the door and eight cents at the retail stores. Of the 3,000 milk farmers, 2,700 are organized; the other 300 are independent. Some of those 300 independents underbid and thus prevent any attempt at stabilizing the price of milk, because the independents go after the fluid milk market, where the price is the best and the profits are higher, and undercut the cooperatives who must share the low returns of all milk products marketed. They also raise the cost of distribution because they duplicate services which should be unified. There are seventeen distributors delivering milk, but only a handful of farmers who are selling milk from door to door. Their wagons are peddling milk from door to door in a ruinous way and the milk farmer is paying for this duplicate distribution and for the nerve-wracking price cutting tactics of the independent. It is not the consumer that is breaking the prices. Vancouver is getting milk at 9 cents; Calgary pays 11 cents, Edmonton 10 cents, Winnipeg 10 cents and Victoria 11 cents, showing that Vancouver is not holding up the consumer in the price of milk. Instead of 30 cents a pound that the farmer is now getting for butter fat, he could be getting nearly 40 cents; instead of 2i cents per quart he could be getting 3 cents or 3i cents. By eliminating duplication in distribution the farmer could be paid still more, probably another cent per quart, and 74726-29^
the consumers in Vancouver would not be called upon to pay any more, because it is the cost of distribution that is running up the overhead. Vancouver consumers use 80,000 quarts of fluid milk per day. If the farmers could be paid two cents a quart more by the above methods, it would mean an additional $1,600 a day or well over half a million dollars a year for the farmers of the Fraser valley and the lower mainland. That is the price that 3,000 farmers are paying for the refusal of 300 independents to cooperate. We hope that the legislation that is to come will be brought down just as soon as the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister can have it placed before us for consideration. It should be brought down before the session at Victoria is near prorogation, because if it is left too long it will mean that no enabling legislation can be put through the provincial house this year, with the result that over half a million dollars will be lost to the farmers of the Fraser valley.
In that connection I would like to make a few remarks about the statement of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maiclnnis) when, speaking of the milk bill, he said- that the farmers in the Fraser Valley or in British Columbia were in just about the same position that the trade unionists were twenty-five or thirty years ago. Let me say for the benefit of the house and of the hon. member for Vancouver South, and speaking as a trade unionist with as long and as good a record as he has, that in that bill the FVaser valley milk producers jumped far ahead of any trade union movement. At one stroke they went years ahead of any trade union legislation, because, as most of us know, joining a trade union is not compulsory. Members are generally brought into a trade union by moral suasion, or perhaps during times of strike by picketing.


Angus MacInnis: I would like to point out that the farmers are asking legal sanction for what the trade unionists try to enforce without legal sanction.


Thomas Reid: Not all trade unionists have
asked for the same thing, because I belong to a union that has never asked for compulsory membership.


Angus MacInnis: We never asked for that.


Thomas Reid: The hon. member made his speech. I know just as much about this matter as he does, and when it comes to that I have a good record in unionism second to no one in this house. I say that without any boasting at all. Trade unions never ask the government for legislation to compel every man
The Address-Mr. Reid

to join; the farmers in British Columbia have done so, and this enabling legislation seeks that very thing. But, as many hon. members know, they ran into a snag or two in connection with indirect taxation that conflicted with the federal powers and provincial jurisdiction. This statement may interest the house, and I make it with a great deal of pride, that the marketing legislation now before the government of Great Britain, especially that relating to the marketing of milk, was based on the bill introduced into the British Columbia legislature by the farmers of the Fraser valley. We take a great deal of pride out there in the fact that British Columbia has given the old country the lead in orderly marketing. Before passing on I reiterate my previous statement, because I realize how serious conditions are among the farmers out there; I ask the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister to expedite the proposed marketing legislation to the utmost of their power so that we may have enabling legislation passed in Victoria this year.
There are some other matters in the speech from the throne to which I should like now to refer. I note that it states the following in reference to the world monetary and economic conference:
The conference adjourned without dealing with many important subjects, but arrived at conclusions of especial interest and concern to Canada in respect to central banks, the gold standard, and the percentage of metallic coverage essential to the successful functioning of gold as a medium of international exchange.
I repeat what I said a few days ago in connection with gold coverage: I think the Prime Minister was derelict in his duty in not having appropriated all the gold of this country and added it to the treasury, or carried out the provisions agreed on at the imperial economic conference here by immediately reducing the metallic coverage of our currency so that further currency amounting to over $100,000,000 could be issued. I am particularly well pleased, Mr. Speaker, that Canada has seen fit, through its finance -minister, to sign the agreements, which I hope will be ratified by parliament, relating to silver. I will have more to say on that subject later on, -because as the house well knows I have a resolution asking the government to recognize silver, which I hope will come up in the near future. In passing however, I should like to say that I think great praise should be given to the United States for giving a lead in this regard, especially as they have a large accumulation of gold and could have withstood the attacks of the advocates of silver; but the United States government, even though having the

most gold of any nation, was the first to lead the way in making silver as well as gold a basis for currency.
The other day the Prime Minister corrected me in what I said about a speech delivered by him in Vancouver. In that connection I will read the statement he made and leave it to the house to say whether it could not be rightfully interpreted as meaning just what I said. Speaking of the debt of Canada, including the railway debt, he said:
Where is the spirit of our pioneers who tilled our soil and worked in our forests? Did they go to the government whenever they wanted anything?
They did not ask governments to be a wet nurse to every derelict.
Many were led to believe that the remark related to those who are destitute and on relief. It was so interpreted by many there; as a matter of fact on the following day letters appeared in the newspapers .protesting against such an insult. We hiave heard, Mr. Speaker, a great deal of praise of Canadians for their endurance during these trying times; it is a wonder the government does not give the people of Canada any reason to pay tribute to the powers of perfortnance of the government.
I would like to speak also of another part of the speech from the throne, that which relates to relief. There is a paragraph in the speech which states that the Dominion government is doing everything possible to help the provinces during these terrible times of crisis. I hope the Dominion government will do all it can to help the provinces refinance the heavy loans they have had to negotiate and at much lower rates of interest than they are called upon to pay at present. In my opinion that would be some real help indeed.
When I brought up the question of relief, however, I intended to deal with the province of British Columbia and in that particular my remarks are not going to be too critical, though I have certain suggestions to offer which I believe should be placed before the house. Before doing so, however, I would direct attention to the fact that British Columbia is carrying a heavier load than most provinces. Many reasons could be given as to why that is so; I think one in particular is that due to the fine climate we have in British Columbia many thousands of people have drifted there from other provinces, and I do not think that strictly speaking, these transients should be charged against either the municipalities or the British Columbia government. Take the case of the city of Vancouver; I have here

The Address-Mr. Reid
the number of people on relief in November last, in a statement which I obtained just before I left for Ottawa. I find that in Vancouver some 6,676 transient single men are being cared for. These men have come largely from other provinces, and the city of Vancouver should not be charged with the relief which they entail. There are some 720 transient families in that city as well, a very large number indeed. If one had time to go through the list I hold in my hand, which gives the figures for the mainland only, he would find that there are 1,058 transient families on relief in British Columbia, and that does not take into account Vancouver island or the territories in the north and elsewhere which are looked after by the provincial government. He would find also that there are 6,852 homeless single men being looked after.
The Prime Minister has made it very clear, especially since the last election, that the duty is on the municipalities first of all to take care of the unemployed and destitute, and that when the municipalities are unable to do so it becomes the duty of the province. During the election campaign of 1930 it was interpreted in the opposite way, but at all events I think it would be well if some special check were made by the Dominion government and some greater interest taken in how the relief generally is carried on throughout the entire province. I do not think it is well to have some municipalities pay a set scale of relief with no work, while other municipalities pay a certain scale with work; and others again provide work but pay only small wages. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction throughout the province because of that fact.
Let me cite one case, to show the inequalities in the granting of relief. About two months before I came here I attended a meeting of returned men. One of the major subjects discussed there was the question of a German family who had been in Canada just five years and three months and who were drawing $31 a month in relief, while their neighbours, some of them returned men who bad offered their all for this country, were being given only $9, $10 or $11 a month. You can imagine the feelings of these returned men when this German flaunted his cheque in their faces. I suppose if the Prime Minister were here he would rise in his place and say thait this is not a question for the Dominion government but that it is primarily a municipal or provincial affair and that my complaint should be taken to the province. After struggling with this question for three years, however, surely the Dominion government are not going
to adopt that stand forever; surely they are not always going to hide behind the British North America Act and say they cannot do anything. It is high time something effective was done in connection with inequalities and injustices such as this, because after all the Dominion government must have some responsibility since they are contributing large amounts Ito the various provinces.
I have another complaint which I should like to direct to the attention of the government as well. As badly as relief and the relief camps were administered by the late administration in British Columbia they did one admirable thing in connection with the purchasing of supplies. As many hon. members know, many camps have been taken over by the Department of National Defence. Before that was done, however, the camps in my constituency were purchasing their supplies from the farmers in the immediate vicinity. They bought potatoes, turnips, carrots, pork, beef and milk directly from the farmers, and they paid the current market prices. It is very noticeable, however, that since the Department of National Defence took over the camps it has been Pat Burns and Swift's who have furnished all these supplies. This has occasioned a great loss to the farmers in my constituency, and they feel that there is something wrong when the produce is bought first of all as cheaply as possible by these firms, trucked into the city of Vancouver, and then brought back out again. I think the government might well take note of a situation such as that, because that comes directly under their jurisdiction and control.
With regard to relief in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, I should like to add that some of the municipalities are still in grave difficulties. One municipality, to which I directed the attention of the house two years ago, the municipality of Burnaby, still has 25 per cent of it population on relief. I doubt if any district in Canada has a larger proportion of its inhabitants on relief. With a population of 25,000 Burnaby has over 6,000 people on relief.
I believe that public works should foe started, and I do not believe any municipality should be allowed to give relief without some return. I also believe that the wages paid those in the camps should be increased, even if the hours or days of work should be lessened. This handing out of 20 cents a day, even with food, clothing and shelter, has broken the spirit and taken the very life out of many of those who are in the camps. The government would be well advised to put into effect some uniform system throughout
The Address-Mr. Reid

so that the same relief scale would be in force throughout the province. I believe some return by way of work should be asked for, but the men should be paid a decent wage which will permit a decent standard of living.
Two or three days ago I directed a question tc the Prime Minister with regard to the entry of cattle into Great Britain. I did so because I have listened to hon. members opposite take great praise for the amount of produce leaving this country for Great Britain. The statement contained in the article which I am about to read indicates to me a very serious situation so far as the cattle industry of this country is concerned, and it affects not only the cattle industry but our egg exports as well. I read this article to the house because I wish thereby to draw it to the attention not only of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) but also of the Prime Minister. I quote from the Vancouver Province of January 27 of this year:
Grave fears for the future of the beef industry of western Canada, which have been showing renewed life, were expressed by members of the Western Canada Livestock Union at its annual meeting in Moose Jaw, according to Jack Byers, manager of the Western Stock Growers' Association, who returned to his Calgary office this week.
Before Great Britain placed the quota on Canadian exports, limiting the quantity of beef cattle for the first three months of 1934 to the number shipped during the same period of 1933, the stock business on the prairies had developed very rapidly in the production of cattle of^ suitable type for that market, Mr. Byers said, and the future appeared brighter than for some time.
"We were hoping that Great Britain, the only market to-day for our surplus, could be built up during the coming years until the period from 1893 to 1913, when 150,000 head of cattle were shipped annualy, was approached." The major difficulties of providing facilities for ocean transport and sufficient numbers of good quality animals had been practically over' come, Mr. Byers said, with the assistance of Hon. H. H. Stevens, minister of trade and commerce, when the quota, described by Mr. Byers as a bombshell, threatened to demoralize the industry in the west. He added:
"Although we are placed in a much Jess favourable position than Ireland, our chief competitor for the English business, no attempt at bargaining by negotiation was made, with the result that while Ireland is allowed to ship 1,775 fat cattle and 5,066 store animals each week at about 84,000 head in the three-month period, Canada will be limited to 7,900 head in the same period. This limitation is imposed at a time when available ocean space has been built up to 13,000 head in three months." Stockmen were beginning to realize the seriousness of the position that would arise in the near future, Mr. Byers said, and the belief that Canada would have fewer cattle to ship this year appeared to have been swept away by the facts.
As hon. gentlemen know, the industry was given an impetus by the negotiations between [DOT]Mr. Reid.]
Canada and the United Kingdom looking to the entry of Canadian cattle into that market, and particularly so after the Ottawa agreements. The article continues:
In the first twenty days of the year 3,000 head of the 7,000 allowed for three months had been shipped, more than twice the number of last year. It appears probably that the end of February would see the quota exhausted, and the only available market for the western industry closed.
The article goes on to say that this serious condition has been drawn to the attention of the government. If the facts are as stated, it will certainly be a serious blow to the cattle industry, and the fault I find with this government is that it was not active enough in bargaining at the time Ireland and other countries were bargaining with Great Britain in connection with this very matter.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that that is all I have to say to the house at the moment, because, as I said before, I shall place before the house my views on the silver question when my motion comes up for debate.


Hon. PETER IIEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to
speak to-night at this late hour but inasmuch as the government are not ready for a vote I shall try to save them from being defeated.


Robert James Manion: I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. gentleman, but the government has been ready for a vote all day. There has not been a speaker on the government side all day, I believe.


Peter Heenan: At any rate, Mr. Speaker,
we have before us the motion for the adoption of the speech, and the amendment thereto of the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) to the effect that the government has lost the confidence of the house and the subamendment moved by my hon. friend from Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) that both the Conservative government and the Liberal opposition have lost the confidence of the people. If the subamendment were carried it would be in effect a vote of confidence in my hon. friends in the left corner of the house, and that would be an easy way for them to get into power.
Speaking directly to the subamendment-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member is in
error. There is only one amendment before the house. The subamendment was ruled out of order.	,


Peter Heenan: I think it would have
been better if we had voted the subamendment down rather than have it declared out of order. I am not so sure as my hon. friends

The Address-Mr. Heenan
to my left that the people have lost confidence in the Liberal opposition. In fact as I go through the country, and I travel quite a bit, sometimes having the honour of pulling my hon. friends opposite through the country at a high rate of speed, but always in safety-


Robert James Manion: We have always had a
good pull.


Peter Heenan: advertisement shows an old man and an old woman congratulating themselves and thanking heaven that at last. a man had arisen who was going to give them one hundred per cent old age pensions. The picture of R. B. Bennett is in the comer.


Alfred Duranleau: They are giving
sevenity-five per cent.


Peter Heenan: Seventy-five per cent is
about as far as any Conservative government will go, any time, any where. There is the following notice at the bottom of the advertisement:
The national old age pension policy of the Conservative party's platform, to which they are unalterably pledged, provides that the dominion treasury bears the entire cost.
That is the way the aged people in the mari-times as well as in other parts of the country were deceived. In case there was any doubt as to the position, after the Prime Minister returned to Ottawa from the maritimes he endeavoured to make sure that the people down there did not misunderstand his views. The elections were to be held on July 28, 1930, and he addressed a letter to the people of Nova Scotia on July 12. After ridiculing the leader of the opposition and his attitude with respect to the constitution and other things, he ends his letter by saying:
If returned to power on the 28th of this month, I pledge my party to pass a national old age pension bill by which the federal treasury will provide all the money required, thus treating all the old people alike, whether they live in the maritimes or in any other part of Canada.
Faithfully yours,
R. B. Bennett,
Leader, Liberal-Conservative party.
My hon. friend, the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) says, "We will give them seventy-five per cent."


Alfred Duranleau: To date, yes.


Peter Heenan: Where is all the money he promised them in 1930?
The Liberal party passed legislation which had been sought for some time by the labouring men of this country. This legislation was for the purpose of preventing fraud with respect to union-made goods. Many concerns throughout Canada were advertising goods as union-made when in fact they were made in non-union shops. This act gave the right to labour unions to own and1 register their own labels.
Before we left office we took up with the various provinces the matter of instituting an unemployment insurance scheme. Some
IMr. Heenan.]
of the provinces were in agreement in that regard, and I am satisfied that had the Liberal party been returned to power we would not now be merely talking about unemployment insurance; we would have it in operation. For the benefit of my hon. friends in the corner, I will say that when the Liberal party is returned to power, which should not be very long, we will place in operation a workable unemployment insurance scheme. It will not be one like that which I contemplate my hon. friends opposite will bring in just five minutes before the elections, some kind of actuarial scheme which will never work in a country such as Canada.
By order in council we applied the eight hour day to all government employees who had been! working over eight hours. We applied the fair wages clause and the eight hour day to all public works and public contracts. We went as far as we understood we could go under the constitution. We took the beam out of our own eye and were leading the way. We were not like the Prime Minister who upon his return from overseas not long ago declared to all and sundry that this country could not experiment in shorter hours and higher wages; it was an exporting country. I am satisfied the Prime Minister did not voice the sentiments of the majority of the people in this country when he intimated that Canadians must work longer hours . at lower wages in order that we might be regarded as a low-paying country and thereby be able to sell our products in the markets of the world.
The Liberal government did something for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and his friends the postal workers who had taken part in the Winnipeg strike. An injustice had been done to these men by the withholding of wages from them, and the Liberal government passed a measure to reimburse them these back wages to the extent of $100,000. It was not all that they were entitled to, but it represented a fair measure of justice. And need I remind the house that the Liberal government put upon the statute book the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, which the labouring men of this country have effectively invoked. The enaiotment of that measure has resulted in the saving of hundreds of millions of dollars without the necessity of a soldier or a policeman going in to settle any disputes. I could enumerate many more, but I think I have said enough to indicate that the Liberal govern ment did something for the labouring classes of this country.

The Address-Mr. Heenan
When we come to the amendment, if anyone wants proof of the statement it contains, that the government has lost the confidence of the people, all that has to be done is to go among the farmers and the business men of the country, to talk with men in sleeping cars, in smoking compartments, in the hotels, wherever men gather together. They will tell you. The people of the country are waiting to vote against the government, but the government has not gone out to ask for a new mandate. It is manifest that this government has lost the confidence of the people.
All you have to do is to look at the condition of farmers anywhere in Canada. Go through the country to-day and ask the very question the Prime Minister himself put to them. Ask them, " How much more money have you in your pocket to-day than you had in 1930? Let that be your answer." Well, I say, let that be their answer to-day. Take the three western provinces. Their gross revenue decreased from $843,153,000 in 1928 to $273,738,000 in 1932, or a loss from 1928 to 1932 of $569,415,000-a loss incurred since this government came into power, a government that was going to blast a way into the markets of the world for the farmers of Canada. I would refer hon. gentlemen to the memorandum submitted by the United Farmers of Ontario, taken from statistics issued by the Dominion government, showing the value of field crops in Canada. In 1928 the figure was $1,125,000,000, and in 1932 it was $416,586,000, or a loss in field crops throughout Canada of $708,417,000. Not much blasting there. Every man on the other side of the house, and many supporters of the government throughout the country, promised the farmers not only to blast a way into the markets of the world but to bring about higher prices for the things the farmers produce.
Again, the government promised the workers of Canada a higher standard of living. Well, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) has told us something about conditions in the camps in British Columbia- he did not call them slave camps but he ought to have done so. I will coin a new name for them; I will call them distress camps, because, in northern Ontario at any rate, everyone in distress is put in these camps, and given distress wages. This government contributes thereto. It allows the Ontario government to place young Canadians, the flower of Canadian manhood, in these distress camps, paying them $5 a month with their board in the summer and $10 a
month with board in winter. The Dominion government itself, up at Lac Seul pays 2C cents a day; it does not pay the men there $5 per month because if 'they lose time through weather conditions or sickness they lose their pay for that time. That is the higher standard of living which this government promised the workers in 1930. And to carry the deceit further-because it is nothing less than deceit-this government actually counts those men as employed; it provides for them in the statistics as employed men, while the Ontario ministers are going up and down the country ashamed of it- ashamed to this extent, that in their speeches they declare specifically that these men are not employed. They say that the camps are not work camps but camps where young men without homes are placed during the winter, and further that the money given them is not wages. Well, anyone knows that it is not wages; we need not be told that. Yet this government counts these thousands of men among the employed in order to deceive the people of Canada.
Take next the railway situation. I am glad to see the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) in his place, because the railway situation can be taken in any country as the best barometer of the progress or otherwise of the community. In 1929 the number employed in the railways in Canada was 187,000, in round figures. In 1931, the first full year of the Conservative regime, it was 154,000, and in 1932 it had fallen to 132,000. This last year the number was 122,000. In other words, in round figures, there were 65,000 less employed last year than there were during the last full year of Liberal regime. And this is the direct result of the Conservative party's policy of strangling trade in Canada. What does it mean in purchasing power? In 1929 the wages paid to the railway men of Canada amounted to $290,000,000, whereas in 1933 wages to railway men amounted to $160,000,000, or a reduction of $130,000,000.
Further, this government promised "amalgamation never, competition ever", and I believe that to-day they still say there has been no amalgamation of railways in Canada. But I am one man who has stood up on the floor of this house and outside as well and declared that the railways have been amalgamated as a result of the legislation passed last session, amalgamated in everything but name. It is deceit of the worst kind to call it cooperation or anything else than amalgamation. The Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) the other day made a speech, right in Ottawa
The Address-Mr. Heenan

I believe, in which he referred to the railway question; and he is preparing now for the full amalgamation of the railways. Had one of the Liberal ministers made a speech of that kind I can imagine gentlemen now sitting on government benches rising up and saying something like this, "These gentlemen have no regard for cabinet solidarity". Hon. gentlemen opposite are making speeches in various parts of the country to please the people in those different parts; but in the house the Minister of Railways and the Prime Minister say that there is no thought of amalgamation of the railroads of Canada, while their colleague the Secretary of State the other day made a speech which was practically to the effect that the railways must be amalgamated.


Robert James Manion: He said that under certain conditions they must be amalgamated.


Peter Heenan: Yes, if the Conservative
government is kept in power, they are bound to be amalgamated because they are strangling Canada. Last year the bill which was passed provided for what? The formation of new companies, the stock to be equally owned by the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National.


Robert James Manion: And it forbids amalgamation.


Peter Heenan: It provides for amalgamation all the way through, and at the end the government accepted an amendment which, had 1 had anything to do with it, would never have been placed in the bill because it means nothing; it is simply window dressing. After provision was made for amalgamation of the railroads, another clause was inserted stating: Nothing herein contained authorizes the amalgamation of the railroads of Canada, while the fact was that they were already amalgamated. The amalgamation of the railways of Canada is provided for, in everything but name,, in section 16 of the act that we passed last year. That was the most gigantic piece of deception that was ever put over white men in a white man's country. We see the surveyors all up and down the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National to-day, making surveys with a view to connecting the two lines; we see the pooling of passenger and freight trains. There is provision in the act for taking running rights over one another's road and the use of joint equipment. Not so long ago a Conservative member said in Winnipeg: "All the bill provides for is to eliminate duplication."

Well, when you eliminate duplication, what have you ? You have amalgamation; there is no use in trying to deceive ourselves any longer.


Robert James Manion: There is at the present time no amalgamation whatever of the two railways. Just because the hon. gentleman keeps on repeating the word "amalgamation" does not make it a fact.


Peter Heenan: Just because the hon. member denies it does not mean that it is not a fact. There are to-day 65,000 railway men fewer than there were in 1,929. Men and women are being thrown out into the gutter to-day, including railroad men with twenty years or more experience.


Robert James Manion: No such thing.


Peter Heenan: Still hon. gentlemen sit
there and say that we have not any amalgamation! The railroad men who are losing their wages know that we have.


Robert James Manion: They do not know any
such thing, and neither does my hon. friend; he is just talking,


Peter Heenan: What are the excuses for
all this? Not very long ago some Ontario minister who made a trip through northern Ontario made the most ridiculous excuses that statesmen or alleged statesmen ever made in this or any other country. It was flippancy of the worst kind, but it was left to one particular gentleman to make this excuse and it is one of the worst that was made. The Hon. Howard Ferguson, the Hon. George Henry, the Hon. Mr. Finlayeon, Minister of Lands and Forests, and my hon. friend the present Minister of Railways, made a trip through northern Ontario and told the people that the reason there were so many unemployed was because of the policies of the former federal government; but this is what they say now after they have had three years to put their policies into effect:
There are people who will say to you that the troubles that we are passing through to-dlay are caused by the government of the province of Ontario, or of the Dominion of Canada. Those of you who think and read and exercise ordinary intelligence and sense know that the government of Ontario or the government of Canada have not produced the results through which we are passing, but the Great war has been the cause of it.
According to this, the war that ended fifteen years ago was the cause of it and yet three years ago this same gentleman, whose words I am now quoting as reported in the Fort Frances Times of November 2, 1933, had the

Privilege-Mr. Willis
audacity to face an intelligent audience and say in effect: "I deliberately lied to you in 1930; I deceived you and I put policies into effect that betrayed you. Now I have come around to tell you that if you had used ordinary intelligence and common sense, you might have known that I was trying to fool you in 1930."
The other day when the Liberal leader attempted to quote from a prayer, the Prime Minister said across the floor of the house that this was as near blasphemy as had ever been uttered in the house. Not so long ago the same Prime Minister went to Toronto and, speaking before, I think it was the Ministerial Association, said: "Nothing but the grace of God can save this country." Now when my hon. friends think there is an uplift, that we have turned that corner for which we have long been waiting, they are not giving God the credit; they are saying that the credit is due to the policies of the Conservative government which they represent. I do not know whether one would call that blasphemy or not, but it is just highway robbery of the worst kind, trying to steal from the higher power the credit for bringing this about.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, February 12, 1934