1934-02-15

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, under the heading of presenting reports of committees I beg to offer the first report of the special committee appointed to inquire into price spreads and mass buying.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, it will be noted that the numbers of copies to be printed was left blank. I asked the secretary of the committee to give me some suggestions as to the usual practice, and the suggestion is that onie thousand copies in English and two hundred and fifty in French be the figures inserted. With the consent of the house I ask that these figures be inserted.

Questions
5S9
I beg to move that the report be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: 1.	How many cars of apples did the fruit inspectors of the Department of Agriculture, inspect in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, and Nova Scotia, during the shipping season of 1932-33?
2.	Was an inspection fee of $3 per car charged in each case for this service?
3.	If so, what was the total amount of money collected from this inspection charge in Ontario, Quebec, and Nova Scotia, during the shipping season of 1932-33?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	5.172.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


* CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-RAILWAY TIES
Mr. VALLANCE:: 1.	Have any contracts been awarded for railway ties in the constituency of Prince Albert during the years 1933 and 1934 by the Canadian National railways?
2.	If so, to whom, for what quantity and at what prices?
3.	Have any of these contracts been cancelled?
4.	If so, with whom?


Mr. MANION:: In regard to that question, the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) asked the same question about his constituency the other day and I gave him the following answer:
The Department of Railways and Canals has no information with respect to tie purchases by Canadian National railways, and the railway in the past has taken the stand that the bringing down of information of this nature is not in the public interest.
If it relieves the minds of my hon. friends opposite I might tell them that I was in Geneva when the orders were given last year so I know nothing about them.


Mr. EULER:: The cables were working, were they not?


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF, WINNIPEG ARMOURY
Mr. HEAPS:: 1.	Has the government agreed to the construction of a new armoury building in the city of Winnipeg, as an unemployment relief measure?
2.	If such an armoury is constructed, will the government undertake to see that public tenders are called for and fair wage regulations inserted in the contract?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	No.
2.	See section 36, chapter 166, Public Works Act, R.S.C., 1927, regarding the calling of tenders for works to be done by contract.
All contracts awarded by the Department of Public Works provide for minimum rates of wages to be paid by the contractor in accordance with rates fixed by the Department of Labour.


DEPORTATIONS
Mr. BEAUBIEN:: 1.	How many persons have been deported during the years 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933?
2.	What is the nationality of deportees?


Mr. GORDON:: 1. 1930, 3,515; 1931, 6,097; 1932, 6,976; 1933, 4,679.
2.
Statement of deportations from Canada,	showing country deported to,	for the	Calendaryears 1930,	1931, 1932 and 1933 1930	1931	1932	1933Albania	2	Arabia	1	Austria	. .. 6	41	51	25Belgium	. .. 8	48	25	9British- England	
.	. .. 1,393	2,068	2,151	1,309Ireland, Northern	. .. 241	355	343	218Ireland, Free State	. .. 72	138	136	53Scotland	... 563	1,037	1,100	840Wales	. .. 179	246	252	194Australia	. .. 3	10	17	15Bermuda	8British Guiana	2British Straits Settlements	1	
Questions

Statement of deportations from Canada, showing country deported to, for the Calendar years 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933-Concluded
British-Concluded
British West Indies.. India (East Indian). Lesser British Isles..
Malta	
Newfoundland	
New Zealand	
South Africa	
Bulgaria	
China	
Czechoslovakia	
Danzig	
Ecuador	
Egypt	
Esthonia	
Finland	
France	
French West Indies.. ..
Germany	
Greece	
Haiti	
Holland	
Hungary	
Italy	
Japan	
Jugo-Slavia	
Korea	
Latvia	
Lithuania	
Luxemburg	
Palestine	
Poland	
Portugal	
Roumania	
Russia	
Scandinavian-
Denmark	
Iceland	
Norway	
Sweden	
Spain	
St. Pierre and Miquelon
Switzerland	
Syria	
T urkey	
Ukraine	
Ocean Port Totals.. .. UJ3.A. citizens	
Grand totals.. .
government employees receiving war PENSIONS


Mr. GIROUARD:: 1. How many persons employed by the government of Canada receive a pension from the pension board, in addition to their salary? 
1930	1931	1932	193316	6	13	42	2	1	2101	1	2	111	12	23	231	2	11	36	1	32	6	11	1467	83	62	9141	240	227	1145	123	8	3	477	211	309	2587	10	20	61	93	206	212	16010	16	13	7131	51	67	3231	119	163	10112	19	30	139	7	65	2732	57	125	11311	2	12	20	28	191	1	11	143	328	608	3181	144	145	175	1594	15	34	1264	133	95	701	1	1	244	91	104	4438	57	116	761	6224	40	29	131	5	....	11	1	3,289	5,847	6,633	4,388226	250	343	2913,515	6,097	6,976	4,6792. What is	the total	amount	received aspension and salary ?	the total	amount	received as


Mr. CAHAN:: A year ago the hon. member made a similar inquiry and an order for return was made. It has been impossible dur-

Questions as Orders for Returns
ing the year to obtain anything like a satisfactory return to that order, although to-day I have laid on the table of the house the best information we could obtain. During the present session I have laid on the table of the house sixteen portfolios containing the names of between 99,000 and 100,000 persons receiving pensions. To ascertain who of all those in the public service of Canada are receiving such pensions is impossible by mere comparison of names. It means that each department must send to every employee in the public service, permanent or temporary-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Including those in foreign countries.	.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: -to ascertain whether that person is one of those 99,000 or 100,000 persons whose names are mentioned in the sixteen portfolios I produced. It is impossible to answer the question now, and the departments report that it is impossible to prepare an answer in less than ten or twelve months or perhaps more. Therefore I ask the hon. gentleman if he would drop that question under the circumstances.
Question dropped.


DALHOUSIE, N. B.-WHARF
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Bow much money was spent for repairs to public wharf at the port of Dalhousie, New Brunswick, from May 1, 1930, to December 31, 1933, and how much in each year?
2.	How much money was spent for dredging at the port of Campbellton, New Brunswick, from May 1, 1930, to December 31, 1933, and how much in each year?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Deep Water Ferry 1.-	Wharf	Wharf1930- 31	
$2,096 01	$4,425 411931- 32	
1,916 871932- 33	
1,989 811933-	34 (to Dec.31)	
803 70$2,899 71	$8,332	09
2.-
1930-	31	
$89,559	401931-	32	
20,980	161932-	33	
1,066	541933-	34 (to Dec. 31)	
Nil
8111,606 10



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


William Daum Euler: What guarantees or loans or grants have been made in the years 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934, to persons, or private concerns or corporations?


Mr. RHODES:: Return tabled herewith.


BRITISH COLUMBIA STEAMSHIP SUBSIDIES
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	What are the names of all ship owners, or shipping companies, receiving during the calendar year 1933 from the Dominion government payment for services originating either in Vancouver- or Victoria, British Columbia, whether subsidized for a distinct service or receiving payment for carrying mail either on a flat rate or so much per unit?
2.	What is the amount paid to each company?
3.	Are any of these owners or companies required by the terms of their contracts to use British Columbia coal on their boats; if so, which, and have they adhered to such condition?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Return tabled herewith.


FORTY DAYS IN CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I have but one word to add with reference to question No. 3 which is on the order paper since January 30. It is the only one of my questions which remains on the order paper, and I would request the hon. Acting Postmaster General (Mr. Dupre) to kindly reply to it as soon as possible, because, should this question remain alone on the order paper, it will become lonesome and others will turn up to keep it company.
May I ask the Acting Postmaster General if question number 3 will be answered before the Postmaster General becomes a Moslem?
Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Acting Postmaster General) (Translation):: In reply to my hon. friend, I shall be in a position to give him further information within a few days.


MONTREAL-OTTAWA TRAINS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: I should like to ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) if he has received any representations concerning the train schedules between Ottawa and Montreal. Both companies have reduced their schedules considerably, for which they should be commended,

Montreal-Ottawa-Quebec Trains
but the remaining trains of both companies leave at the same hour. For instance, in the afternoon you have two trains at half-past three and two trains shortly after four o'clock, with no service at all for the rest of the afternoon. I may say that I do not speak for the members of parliament who travel on their passes; I have received many representations from citizens of Montreal who come to Ottawa in the morning and must return to Montreal not later than 4.20 in the afternoon.
My question to the minister is whether he has received similar representations, and whether it is within the power of his department to make suggestions to the companies accordingly.


Robert James Manion: I will answer the last
question first. I have not received such representations, and the matter does not come within the purview of my department at all. The hon. gentleman is still mayor of Montreal, and I suggest very sincerely that he might call upon the president or the chairman of the board and make these representations in person, because otherwise I shall be merely passing on his representations to the companies. I shall gladly do so if the hon. gentleman wishes, but since he lives in Montreal it might be as well for him to take that action. I have had individuals mention the matter to me incidentally, but I have had no representations of any kind, though I think the matter is worthy of consideration.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Perhaps I might take the advice given by the minister the other day and ask for his cooperation. We might both do it.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Then I should like to
ask the minister if we may expect his department to be abolished, because apparently it has no authority at all.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


MONTREAL-QUEBEC TRAINS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Since the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) has expressed his willingness to transmit to the chairman of the board the representations made by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), I wonder if he would add those I am about to make on behalf of the city of Quebec. There is a train leaving Montreal for Quebec at 6.10 in the afternoon. Unfortunately the train from Ottawa arrives in

Montreal just after the Quebec train leaves. I think it would be very easy to correct this situation, and if a change were made it would be a great advantage to all the Quebec people.


Robert James Manion: I will very gladly transmit this representation, which I think is very reasonable. In reply to my hon. friend the Liberal whip (Mr. Casgrain), who suggested that my department might be eliminated- and I suppose he suggests that I might be eliminated also-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No; oh, no.


Robert James Manion: -I should like to suggest to my hon. friend that neither under the late government nor under this government has the department anything to do with the time tables of the companies. However, I will be very glad to transmit the representations of my two hon. friends to the chairman of the board.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Might I ask the minister what are his duties now?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps in a hundred
years or so, when the Liberal party is in power, they may make the hon. gentleman Minister of Railways so he can find out for himself.


BANKING AND COMMERCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). Can he give the house any information as to when we may expect the standing committee on banking and commerce to begin its work?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would anticipate that it would begin almost immediately, but up to the moment there is no business to be transmitted to that committee.


RAILWAY TIE CONTRACTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. P. J. VBNIOT (Gloucester):: I have a matter to which I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion). In spite of the fact that he has repeatedly stated in the house that he is not responsible for what may be done in the administration of the Canadian National Railways I hope he will take this matter into consideration and try to get the information.

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
In order to put my question I will have to explain the matter a little, but I am not trying to make a speech at all. In 1932 railway tie contracts were called for, and it was stipulated that a certain amount would be paid by the contractors to the settlers and farmers for the ties they provided. This was done to help unemployment. When the contracts were issued this stipulation appeared therein, but that clause was never carried out. In many cases the contractors sold their contracts to sub-contractors for such prices that they were not able to pay the settlers and farmers the amount stipulated in the original contract.
I would ask the minister if he would be kind enough to take up the matter with the railway administration in Montreal and see why these provisions were not carried out. I am making this a statement of fact; I know what I am talking about.


Robert James Manion: Yes, I will gladly do so.


MILK INQUIRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Pierre-François Casgrain: On Friday last I directed a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), and in his absence the Prime Minister said that the question would stand as a notice. It had reference to what the government intended to do with respect to the report of the agriculture committee with regard to the milk situation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Labour has been ill for some days; he is here to-day, but he has not had an opportunity of seeing the question. He will answer it in due course.


GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 13, 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. Woodsworth.
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Just before the house adjourned on Tuesday last, Mr. Speaker, I moved the following amendment:
We respectfully regret that Your Excellency's present advisers have not taken such steps as are necessary to deal adequately with unemployment, to reduce the burden imposed by the public debt, and' to put the agricultural industry on a basis that will insure to the farmer a decent standard of living.
In our judgment there are three outstanding questions confronting the people of Canada, to the solution of which the government after some three years have made no very great contribution. The first question is that of unemployment; the'second is that of the public debt-and I think I might add of private debts as well-and the third is the deplorable position of the agricultural industry. In that connection also I might add the fishing industry, which is almost as badly off.
It is not my intention to quote any elaborate statistics with regard to unemployment; in fact it is almost impossible to obtain any accurate statistics. At best those in charge of the statistical department will give us only a rough estimate. Possibly however we may have some idea of the real situation when we remember that there are under relief to-day in Canada 1,220,000 individuals, including men, women and children. Some of these, of course, are among the number being assisted in the dried out constituencies of Saskatchewan. But, even making allowance for these it is obvious that a very large number are under relief because of unemployment. In my own province of Manitoba, for example, I find that in December a total of 81,943 persons were receiving unemployment relief. This figure shows an increase of 9,434 over the total for December, 1932. Other parts of the country tell a similar story.
I do not intend to quote the pre-election promises of the Prime Minister and other members of the government, as has been done so frequently in this house, but I do want to take this occasion to plead for the unemployed. I know that a constitutional question is involved. Men on both sides of the house admit that the British North America Act does not divide general and local powers in accordance with modern developments, and when it comes to a question of unemployment it seems as though we are touching one of those questions in connection with which a revision of the British North America Act is most required. It is quite obvious that the occasional case of poverty that we had sixty years ago could be dealt with locally, and was essentially a local responsibility, but I need not urge that unemployment on the vast scale that we have to-day is in a totally different category from the few needy individuals who were under poor relief sixty years ago. If we had a famine, a plague or a flood the federal government would have no hesitation in coming to the assistance of a province. I suggest that wide-spread unemployment is almost as disastrous as a flood or a plague, and until such time as we can secure

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
an amendment to the British North America Act which will legally place all responsibility upon the shoulders of the federal government -where I believe, it ought to be-it seems to me that the federal government should be willing to assume the responsibility. As it is to-day we have a tri-partite arrangement under which the federal government gives a certain proportion of relief, the provincial another, and the municipal another. As the years have gone on the provinces-this applies at least to those in the west-have become less and less able to assume their share of this burden, and the municipalities are in a worse plight. Several of the schemes that we have are dependent on the cooperation of the municipality, but in many instances those municipalities are not in a position to put up the necessary funds.
Just before I left home I met a delegation from a small municipality in my own district where certain individuals wanted to be sent out under the farm scheme. As it was under an administrator the municipality could not possibly advance the funds necessary, hence the men who were very needy could not come under the governmental scheme. In fact, in that same municipality men told me that they were living in a condition very little removed from serfdom, that they could not leave the municipality even for a few days without reporting to the relief officer. If they failed to comply with such regulation they were immediately cut off from relief. That is not a condition which should prevail in a free country.
Then, as to food, many families are receiving an amount smaller than that which is necessary to maintain them in proper health. I wonder whether we realize, too, that very often the clothing is altogether inadequate. The difficulty is that it is not merely insufficient to keep out the cold in this extreme winter weather, but in addition to that it is contributed very largely by private and philanthropic relief agencies of various kinds, with the result that for some years a great many people have been forced to be clothed with second-hand clothing. I believe that has a most demoralizing influence on a family. I suggest that very few of us could stand up under that kind of thing month after month and year after year.
Then, there is the question of shelter. I believe it is generally recognized that in order to maintain an ordinary family in decency there should be so many rooms in which they are to live. Many families are being huddled into a single room,-men, women and children

indiscriminately. Social workers are meeting with cases of immorality with which they have to deal, and which have arisen through such housing conditions.
Another difficulty which comes before u* very frequently in this extremely cold weather is that concerning fuel. Food, clothing and shelter used to be considered sufficient to cover all the vital needs, but in these days we need fuel. In many parts of the country, particularly in the west, there is no wood available. Frequently coal is not supplied, and often when there is a supply of wood it is of a very poor type, such as poplar which will not burn throughout an entire night, a condition which is not pleasant in our forty-below-zero weather, and one which causes great suffering to women and children. Such matters are not taken into consideration when relief measures are considered.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Will the hon. member allow a question?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes.


Vincent Dupuis: What section of the British North America Act does the hon. member wish to have amended, and in what way?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not wish to discuss that matter to-day, but I was speaking of unemployment.


Vincent Dupuis: We would like to know, because I understand the hon. member is making a suggestion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite so; the
British North America Act ought to be amended so that a large volume of unemployment such as now obtains should not be left entirely to the responsibility of the province or municipality, but should become a responsibility of the federal government. I have that particular clause in mind.


Vincent Dupuis: It is now under provincial jurisdiction?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, so it is
claimed,-section 92.
Returning to the subject of relief may I say that in addition to food, clothing, shelter and heat there is the necessity for light. Perhaps when people used candles or lamps they could get along, but now most homes are lighted with electric lights and unless there is an allowance made for that the family is in darkness.


Mr.   S@: Mr. Holt is cutting off the light.


James Shaver Woodsworth: One hon. member from Montreal has suggested that Mr. Holt is cutting off the light. There is not much

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
doubt but that is the case in Montreal. Then, there is the difficulty I mentioned the other day, namely that of medical attendance. Hardly any family can get through a year without some medical or dental attendance. So far our relief arrangements have made no provision for such attendance. While sometimes people can get through a few months without medical attendance, as year after year goes by teeth will decay, adenoids and all that *sort of thing witl develop. In some cases glasses have to be obtained, if children are to have the benefit of education. These contingencies are not fully provided for.
In addition to that, though some may think that I am now going too far afield, I would point out that a great many children cannot even get the money to buy the necessary school books, pencils, scribblers-those little things that may be thought beneath the dignity of parliament to consider but which are very vital indeed when you come to the family budget.
There is the question of recreation. We cannot hope that whole families will go along year after year without any provision for recreation. At least the families will not be in very good condition if they do so. This opens up a tremendous field. I think of the fathers, many of them going along from year to year without any employment and losing their self-respect. I think of the mothers becoming discouraged, unable to maintain their hope for the future. I think of the children growing up never having known their father to be at work, never having known what it is for the family to be independent, and they themselves without any prospect even of securing a job.


Mr. ARTHURS:: There are some like that in good times.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is quite true, but they are comparatively rare. My point is that even the best families are going to suffer deterioration under conditions that now prevail.
Then there is the question of the single men, of whom more than 48,000 are to-day employed chiefly in our relief camps. These relief camps are being maintained under the Department of National Defence. I do not think it is a good thing that this relief work should be placed under the military in any way whatever. I admit that these men are receiving decent food, and in many cases clothing and shelter, but I do submit that there is nothing in the life of the relief camp to give these men any real hope. I think it is the surest way to develop bums and criminals.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: That is a national
offence.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes it is, and it should be so considered, and ruled out of order. But in all seriousness I do suggest that you cannot expect young men in the prime of life to go into these camps to get a bare living month after month, and some of them year after year, without their losing hope.-I think of the moral influences which prevail in such places. Young men who under normal circumstances would have a certain amount of social life and would look forward to marrying and rearing their own families are now deprived of all the amenities of home life and are simply kept in these camps for an indefinite future. Really I wonder that there are not more criminal acts in this country than there have been in the immediate past.
I also think of some of the younger people in their parents' homes some of whom have passed out of school but cannot get work, and some of whom have never yet had a job. I know some children who are repeating their last year in school simply because there is nothing else for them to do. Others of them are wandering around the streets and contracting all sorts of bad habits.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a serious national situation that confronts us, and I submit that if this kind of thing is allowed to continue very much longer it will be impossible to maintain the morale of our people.
Further, there has been an enormously heavy expenditure with nothing to show for it. A few years ago the Prime Minister stated that he was opposed to the dole, and he provided a measure of public works. Later on it was said that the public works were too expensive, and we went back again to the dole.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I correct the hon.
gentleman? The provinces selected that form of relief.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That may be, but
again we get back to this question of jurisdiction. The provinces selected that form of relief because it was impossible for them to put up their share of the funds to carry on the public works. Everyone knows that to be the case, and the government cannot escape the responsibility for the change of policy simply by shifting it on to the shoulders of the provinces which could not possibly go through with the original program. We cannot ascertain very closely just what is being expended. I am told that up to
l he Address-Mr. Woodsworth


Mr. MORAND:: Is that due to the number of employees or to the rate of wages?


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is not apparent from the statistics which I have. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics gives the total amounts paid in wages while the dividends are based upon figures which appeared in a survey of corporate securities issued by the Financial Post in 1933.


Mr. HACKETT:: All held in Canada?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The dividends are
created in Canada. In any case, they demonstrate my point that wages decrease much more rapidly than dividends and that while in some cases dividends may increase, wages go on decreasing.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: That may be due to the
use of machinery.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That may be so;
I am indicating a problem which is perhaps created largely by machinery.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the hon. member know that many of the industries making returns are merely turning an old dollar into a new one in order to give employment? During the last few years I am bound to say that this would apply to at least thirty per cent of the industries.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not at all sure that that would affect the significance of these figures.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes, it would.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I might say that in connection with the iron and steel industry I was unable to obtain the figures for 1932 In 1930 the dividends and cash bonuses paid in the oil refining industry decreased -1 per cent while the wages decreased 1-6 per cent. In 1931 there was an increase in dividends and cash bonuses of 1-2 per cent but a decrease in wages of 28-8 per cent. In 1932 the
increase in dividends and cash bonuses amounted to -7 per cent while the decrease in wages amounted to 33-2 per cent. The figures with regard to the sugar refining industry are even more startling. In 1930 there was an increase of 84-9 per cent in dividends and cash bonuses while wages decreased 3-5 per cent. In 1931, dividends and cash bonuses increased 198-1 per cent while wages decreased 13-7 per cent. In 1932 the increase in dividends and cash bonuses amounted to 254 per cent while the decrease in wages amounted to 19-7 per cent. I think these figures demonstrate clearly that there is no proper relationship between wages and dividends. The figures for these industries are taken from tables which cover other industries as well, but I have not the time to give the house the detailed information. The other industries include cement, chemicals, bonds, gold, silk, electrical apparatus, meat packing, brewing and glass. The totals for these industries are as follows:
Dividends and Salaries ' Year	cash bonuses and wages
1929	
$49,543,232	$232,994,0001930	
53,001.249	222,801,0001931	
53.017,954	184,378,0001932	
49,263,613	148,693,000


Mr. CHAPLIN:: The hon. member is giving the figures for salaries in millions where it should be thousands.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am giving millions where it ought to be millions. I might say that the decrease in salaries was quite small when compared to the decrease in wages. I think these figures show clearly that wages and salaries, which in the long run mean purchasing power, are not keeping pace with the increase in dividends and cash bonuses. We are being required to pay an ever-increasing amount of fixed charges while we are receiving smaller and smaller amounts with which to carry that burden. Surely this kind of thing must inevitably lead to disaster.
I come now to the second question, that of the public debt. Every year we have presented to this house large blocks of expenditures which are classed as uncontrollable expenditures. These are increasing steadily from year to year. We sometimes make a cut in the services to the public but we never think of cutting the interest charges. I do not think this matter has ever been better put than it was by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in the statement he made before the committee on monetary and financial

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
questions at the Imperial economic conference of 1932. I should like to quote one or two paragraphs, as follows:
Interest charges represent the most important of the fixed or semi-rigid elements in our cost structure. If prices remain on their present level, such charges will constitute an intolerable or almost intolerable burden in many cases. Even if it can be borne, the fortuitous gain to the creditor of 40 to 48 per cent in general purchasing power above what he contracted for appears to be a grave injustice.
That is the contention we have been making for a great many years in this corner of the house; the bondholder is receiving almost half as much more than the amount to which he is entitled. The Prime Minister admits that he is not entitled to receive what, to use his own words, is a fortunate gain. But we the taxpayers of the country are continuing to pay it. I ask the Prime Minister: What is he doing about that situation? His government has been carrying on for over three years now, and there has been no effort whatever to reduce that burden of public debt.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We did convert $640,-
000,000 of debt and in my judgment, as I have stated publicly, the only conversion that is possible now on any large scale will be after the last of the 5i per cent tax exempt securities fall in 1937. I will give in due time the reasons why.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I shall be glad to
receive that information, but that does not touch the main question as to whether, because of some arrangements made years ago, we should go on indefinitely paying 40 or 50 per cent higher than what is just. I do not see why we should continue to do so simply because of financial arrangements which legally have made it possible. That is something that cannot be got round by such an answer, as given by the Prime Minister. It is all very well to talk about keeping contracts; but when the terms of the contract are fundamentally changed there surely is need to revise the original contract. I continue to quote the Prime Minister:
Moreover, such fixed charges, except as they are reduced by bankruptcy and reorganization, are not being adjusted by the normal corrective processes which falling prices are supposed to set in motion. Indeed, it seems that new disequilibria are created almost as rapidly as old maladjustments are corrected' and the paralysis of business enterprise with profit margins uncertain or non-existent continues. Trade languishes and unemployment persists or tends to become aggravated. One of the most important effects of the fall in prices is the

increased burden of the fixed charges payable on our governmental and private obligations held abroad, chiefly in the United States and the United Kingdom.
And later on.
As one dollar to-day will purchase at wholesale 48 per cent more than it did in 1929, the real burden of the service charges on these foreign obligations has increased from $362,000,000 to $535,750,000.
I would point out to the Prime Minister that after all it is an arbitrary arrangement by which bonds and mortgages have a first claim on national or private income. Why should the man holding a mortgage receive 100 per cent before the man who has given the mortgage is permitted to have anything at all. I know that this is the ordinary arrangement to-day; but when there is such hardship in the country why should it remain the ordinary arrangement? We cannot remain oblivious to the appalling effect upon great masses of the people, and in my judgment the time has come when that convention, though it is legalized, will have to be fundamentally changed. There are some limits to this in ordinary life. If the bailiff goes in there is usually something left; he cannot strip the house of everything.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not much left.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Not much left, I
admit, but there is something in the way of compassionate allowance permitted.


Mr. BOURASSA:: Tools for work.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes. But in larger affairs that is not permitted; there is nothing of that kind in the realm of national or international affairs. There are also in business what are known as insolvency proceedings, and when a man is utterly incapable of ever paying in full he is allowed to pay oil his creditors at so many cents on the dollar and he goes free. I fancy we shall have to have some such process in connection with large public indebtedness; under this system there is no other way out.
The other day I called attention to the fact that we had a debt, federal, provincial, municipal and in connection with public corporations, of over $800 per head. There has been a scaling-down of certain international debts, even Great Britain practically falling in line, although it may be said that she has given a token payment to the United States. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that we shall have to have some scaling down of internal debts as well. Even Great Britain did that when she went off the gold standard;

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
she did so at one stroke to the extent of 25 per cent. France did the same when the franc fell from 20 to 4 cents, making an enormous reduction in debts. Why should we continue to stagger under a tremendous load simply because we have some fantastic ideas with regard to " national honour," " sound money " and the like. Have we no national honour with regard to the 1,220,000 people under relief, and at that such inadequate relief, or the millions of other people who hardly know which way to turn?


Vincent Dupuis: What is the actual value
of the Canadian dollar?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I leave the Minister of Finance to answer that. We could cut down the face value of bonds, or reduce the interest on bonds, or there might be some form of reflation: or a special tax might be put on wealth, which latter I think perhaps would be the best way of meeting the situation.


Mr. HANBURY:: What about repudiation?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not suggesting repudiation; I am suggesting another way of getting at the difficulty. The greater part of the bondis are undoubtedly held by the wealthy; the wealthy people should be called upon much more than they are to pay interest on these bonds.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where are they?


James Shaver Woodsworth: There are some
very wealthy people in this country.


Pierre-François Casgrain: There are no more.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, there are.


An hon. MEMBER:: How many?


James Shaver Woodsworth: We are not permitted to know. The Minister of Finance says that it is not in the interests of the people to know who they are. The truth is it is not in the interests of the wealthy people; that is the real situation.
Let me pass on now to the other matter which we have included in our resolution, that is, the deplorable condition of agriculture. We cannot hope for general prosperity in this country unless there is an improvement in agricultural conditions. It becomes necessary to bring the prices of agricultural and other primary products somewhat into line with those of other commodities. I know that this is a problem that faces all countries, but none the less it is a matter of concern to Canada. Here again I think perhaps I am on safe ground if I quote from the Prime Minister himself. In the same statement from which I quoted a few minutes ago, before the committee on monetary and financial questions of the Imperial economic conference of 1932 he said:
Canada, like all other countries, has suffered severely from the calamitous fall in commodity prices. Since August, 1929, our index of wholesale prices has fallen 32 per cent and' is now only 4 per cent above the pre-war level. This means that the dollar has increased in purchasing power by 48 per cent. As a result of this rapid and persistent decline in the general price level and the inevitable disparities created between different kinds of prices, normal business relationships have been disrupted, profit margins have disappeared in many cases, enterprise has been discouraged, unemployment has steadily increased, the fiscal problems of all our public bodies have been greatly aggravated, and' the burden of fixed charges is exerting an almost intolerable pressure upon some of the strategic elements in our national economy.
Only a few facts need be cited to illustrate the way in which the traditional alignment of economic forces in this country have been sundered by the different rates of speed at which the various parts of our price structure have succumbed to the deflationary pressure of falling prices.
While wholesale prices have been falling 35 per cent, our cost of living index number has fallen only 19 per cent. On this basis the purchasing power of the dollar has increased 24 per cent.
Prices for raw materials, here as elsewhere, have fallen much more rapidly than wholesale prices generally. Thus, prices of raw and partly manufactured materials have fallen 47-3 per cent since August, 1929, whereas prices of fully and chiefly manufactured' articles have declined only 26-0 per cent. Farm products have been particularly hard hit, the decline averaging 56-4 per cent. Wheat, the staple of the western farmer, has fallen from an average price of $1.50 per bushel in 1926 to 55 cents in June, 1932, a drop of 63-3 per cent, giving an index of 36-7 as compared with one of 70 for manufactured goods at wholesale.
It is over a year and a half since the Prime Minister gave that very clear statement of the situation. But what has he done to alter or better the situation?


Mr. MYERS:: A whole lot.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Some hon. member
says a whole lot. The western farmers cannot see where it comes in.


John Howard Myers: Farmers are not all in the west.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The eastern farmers cannot see it either.


John Howard Myers: They are better off.


Pierre-François Casgrain: The Address-Mr. Woodsworth


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Prime Minister now proposes to limit the production of our chief agricultural commodity, wheat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At the instance of the provinces.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, I am quite
willing to add, at the instance of the provinces. And as I said before, I think probably under the circumstances it is an almost inevitable development. But I want to say that if that action is to be any advantage at all it has to be followed or accompanied by some measure of price fixing; otherwise it may prove disastrous.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is quite within his rights in saying that, because the advisory committee, meeting at London, with the importing and exporting countries, have been considering that very point within the past six weeks.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is all very well for the advisory committee sitting in London, but what I want to know is what the government sitting in Ottawa is going to do.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They cannot fix prices.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Prime Minister says they cannot fix prices. Ottawa cannot fix prices in the world market, but Ottawa can fix prices in the domestic market.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. They cannot fix prices in England, neither can they, according to the judgment of the privy council in the Board of Commerce case and the newsprint case, fix prices in Canada. That is for the provinces.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There again we come to the British North America Act. I submit that if this federal government were serious about the matter it would be comparatively easy to arrange such matters at least with the three prairie provinces, that are most concerned. We have the fruit-growers of British Columbia begging for some sort of legislation to be enacted here in order that they may be able to control their product in British Columbia. I think the time has about come that the public will not much Longer tolerate this shoving of the matter by the federal government over to the provinces and the provinces footballing it back to the federal government. Where there is a will there is a wayl
Only the other day in Manitoba I was handed a memorandum by an actual working farmer which I think fairly well puts the

position as the farmers, or at least a considerable number of them in the west, see the situation. I should like to read a few paragraphs :
First let me ask: Does the farmer as the primary producer of food, perform a necessary service to society in general that entitles him to a decent living, an opportunity to retire at sixty or seventy years of age on something better than our present old age pension, and in the meantime be able to pay his way, pay taxes and have some slight chance to keep free from the nightmare of debt that is his present heritage? If the answer is yes, then why do the people in the urban centres of this dominion "through the medium of the processors and distributors of foodstuffs" absolutely refuse to pay to the farmer the costs of production of the food they eat? . . .
I think it is clear that the farmer to-day is producing at less than cost price, and at less than a price that would enable him to maintain a decent Standard of living. It may be that ia very large proportion of the difference between the cost price and the sale price, is taken by middlemen, but in that case the government must intervene. He goes on:
The railways charge the same or higher rates on all our products. The commissions for selling grain and live stock and charges at stockyards are the same as when prices were three times what they are now. Packers and retailers are charging for their services, a higher percentage of the retail selling price than ever before, with the inevitable result that the portion of the consumer's dollar that now reaches the farmer is the lowest in the history of this dominion, and as a result our purchasing power has almost vanished. . . .
I wish the eastern manufacturers could really see the significance of the failure of the western farmers. I cannot see how the east is going to be prosperous unless we have prosperity among our farmers in the west and our farmers all over. I continue to read:
No appreciable or permanent improvement will or can ever take place until some system is devised whereby the price levels of the main necessities of life are permanently fixed and stabilized in as far as that portion of farm produce that is consumed in Canada is concerned', and some definite control established over processors, distributors, etc., so that each may receive their fair and just share of the final retail price according to the service they perform.
My farmer friend then goes into some computations as to what has been lost in the last two or three years by the farmers of the three prairie provinces; that is, taking the price level of 1929 and comparing it with the price levels of later years and showing the smaller returns that go to the farmer. Then with regard to grain, suppose a dollar a bushel represents a fair return to the farmer for his wheat; the difference between this and

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
the price he has actually been receiving means an enormous loss to the farmer. It is a mere guess, but it is calculated that through changes in the price level the farmers of western Canada have tost in the last three years something like half a billion dollars. Let me point out that if that figure is at all correct that means half a billion dollars less of spending power, and that affects the whole country.
My farmer friend goes on to offer a suggested resolution which I think is worthy of consideration by this house; I offer the first part of it:
In view of the fact that agriculture is in a most deplorable condition, having suffered more than any other industry from the depression, loss of markets and the foreign exchange situation. and that there is no improvement in world markets yet in sight;
This house hereby instructs the government to at once to appoint a non-partisan board or boards with full and arbitrary powers to, first, determine and fix a fair price that shall be paid to all primary producers of the main necessities of life, food, clothing and fuel that are produced and consumed in Canada, and control the marketing of same; second, determine and fix maximum prices that may be charged by those engaged in transporting, processing and distributing said necessities within the confines of this dominion; third, to have complete control of the marketing abroad of all surpluses of agricultural products that may be under price control.
When the government is so solicitous of the welfare of big industries in this country, so careful to protect them from outside competition. so careful to see to it that there are such arrangements as will enable the banks to maintain their earnings and to enable the railways, if not to maintain their earnings at least to guarantee their shareholders from loss, it does seem to me that the time has come when something should be done for the agricultural worker in this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think I shall have to
correct the hon. gentleman; there has been no guarantee that the shareholders will not sustain a loss. On the contrary it is quite possible that they may; they have already had a loss, on paper.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then the situation is worse than I had painted it. I am talking about the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and if even the $60,000,000 guarantee is not going to save them I say the situation is much worse.
Mr. BENNETT; That was not what I suggested.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the Prime
Minister repeat his statement; I did not quite catch it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman said the government had guaranteed that the shareholders would not sustain loss. I am bound to say that if he will read the document he will see that this is not what was said. He will observe that $100,000,000 of the four per cent securities of the railway company were delivered to the banks as security for the guarantee of $60,000,-
000.	If there is a failure to pay, under the provisions of the statute the shareholders are squeezed out and the four per cent security holders take possession of the property.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If the securities were not good enough for that loan I cannot see that the securities were worth enough to be very much good to this government.
I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that the suggestions I have offered involve a very considerable departure from the conventional ideas that we have held with regard to the conduct of business in this country, but I submit that our present capitalistic system has proven itself not capable of paying dividends and at the same time paying wages, and that our government is not in a position to pay fixed interest charges on bonded indebtedness and at the same time give those services for which the government exists. That is the inescapable dilemma which we find presenting itself at the present time. A few weeks ago I was very much interested in an editorial appearing in the Winnipeg Free Press in defence of capitalism; It stated:
Capitalism offers to everyone a free field to produce whatever he can and to sell for what he can get. . . . Capitalism, like socialism, has a well rounded theoretic base, and the chief practical advantage based for it is that it brings about the steady rise in living standards which result only from a constant gain in productive efficiency.
The fact is that capitalism is not bringing about a steady rise in living standards.


Wilfred Hanbury: What has brought it
about?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Undoubtedly in the past capitalism has brought considerable gains in the standard of living; I do not deny that, but I say we have reached the point where that is not true to-day.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Then we should revert to the old order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, we should not revert at all; we should go on to a new order. It is very easy for an hon. member to say that we should revert to the old order. I do not think we can turn back the hands of the clock; we must proceed to a new


G02 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
order. This very editorial in the Free Press is followed by a second editorial, from which I should like to read a few sentences:
[DOT]	[DOT] [DOT] the city also gives relief to a large number who are working but not earning enough to support themselves and their families. . . . But many employers are taking advantage of this situation to pay extremely low wages. ... It may well be that some employers are so hard pressed that they could not pay normal wages.
[DOT]	. . But employers should not be allowed to take undue advantage of the fact that relief is available for those who do not earn enough to maintain their families.
The editorial refers to some employers paying as little as $6 a month. There yon have an example of a very distinct lowering of our standards of living, and advantage is being taken of the giving of relief. Practically, relief is a subsidy to low wages. That is an intolerable situation.
The other day the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) referred to us in this corner as wild-eyed socialists, and one might imagine that we had not given very careful consideration as to how the policies which we advocate are to be brought about. I will not take time to-day to indicate in detail how these policies can be carried out, but I would venture to refer the hon. gentleman to a little pamphlet issued not long ago entitled Social Reconstruction and the British North America Act, by F. R. Scott, who is associate professor of constitutional law and federal law in the faculty of law of McGill university. This pamphlet is devoted to a consideration of these problems, "Can we build a new society without destroying the constitution?" and, "Is the C.C.F. program possible under the British North America Act? 1 Anyone who is interested in these questions has ample opportunity fully to consider them from the purely constitutional point of view.
Before I sit down I think I must not allow to pass altogether unchallenged certain statements that have been made in this house with regard to the C.C.F. group. There has been adopted what I consider to be a very unfair method of attack. Individuals have busied themselves in making collections of press clippings, and it must be remembered that many of the newspapers are Liberal or Conservative, sometimes prejudiced against us and sometimes very hostile to us. In many cases the reports are by no means fair representations of what was actually said. So we find individuals in this house who have nothing better to do than go through the files of their own papers, collecting the most unfair of these reports, and then reading them 
to the house as though they were fair accounts of what the C.C.F. stood for. We have no adequate press service, so I should like to correct one or two of the outstanding misrepresentations which have been made in this house, as well as one or two which have been made outside. The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) is reported by the Weyburn Review, of November 2, to have stated:
Referring to the Beauharnois case, Mr. Young said money had been sent by this corporation to Winnipeg to help the C.C.F.
I hope the hon. member for Weyburn made no such statement, as it is absolutely untrue.
Miss MACPHAIL:: The Liberals got it all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is preposterous
that a member who is a supporter of a party that has had to pass through the valley of humiliation with regard to the Beauharnois case should try to unload any share of the blame upon any member in this corner of the house.
I would direct the attention of the house to the fact that there is now pending a suit for $53,972, launched against Sweezey by the executors of the Sifton estate. According to the press, the brothers of Mr. Sifton claim that he exacted an advance payment of $5,000 from Mr. Sweezey when he undertook the furthering of Mr. Sweezey's interests with the understanding that $50,000 additional was to be paid over if the administration of Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, then Prime Minister, approved the Beauharnois canal plan. The Siftons maintain that their brother in fact rendered the required services to Mr. Sweezey so effectively that the development of the Beauharnois project was approved by two orders in council dated March 8, 1929, and June 22, 1929.
In view of circumstances of that kind I think it ill behooves the hon. member for Weyburn to make the statement which he is reported to have made. I say that statement is as untrue as the statement made in some parts of Quebec to which the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) referred, to the effect that the C.C.F. was in receipt of money from Moscow. It seems to me ridiculous that we should have to be subjected to such statements as that.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: We are in receipt of money from nowhere.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Have you any?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am willing to
share with my friends from both political camps all the money I have received from Moscow.

The Address[DOT]-Mr. Woodsworth
Then, only a few days ago the hon. member for Vancouver Centre made reference to the defeat, as he described it, of the C.C.F. in British Columbia. I believe the hon. member was unfair in his reference or I would not refer to the matter. He spoke of the C.C.F. through a large number of years having advanced from four to seven members in the British Columbia legislature. Of course we know that the C.C.F. came into existence only about a year and a half ago. There were some socialist members who sat in the British Columbia legislature some twenty years ago. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre did not point out that whereas the Liberal party in the recent provincial election secured something like forty-two per cent of the votes cast in the province of British Columbia, the C.C.F. secured about thirty-three per cent. If there had been a system of proportional representation the situation in the legislature of that province would be very different from what it is to-day. I think instead of finding those figures anything to gloat over the hon. member might very well read the summary of the situation as it appeared in the Montreal Star of November 7. I quote the last paragraph of the editorial:
The point we are seeking to make is plain enough. The Conservative party disappeared from the scene in British Columbia. lliis ensured a smashing Liberal victory. But there is no talk of either of the old parties disappearing in any other contest, especially in the federal contest. Presumably, they will be waging a furious party fight along the old lines. This will in many eonstituences divide the old-line vote fairly even, and let the C.C.F. candidate win if he gets slightly over one-tliird of the electorate. So when we are sending wreaths to the grave of the C.C.F. because of their failure with Stubbs-probably a poor candidate-and their comparative failure _ in British Columbia with one of the parties eliminated, we had perhaps better save our money for propaganda among the electors on the necessity of postponing our sham party fights for a while and facing a real danger-an economic revolution that would wreck most of our established institutions.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Do you agree with that statement?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I agree with the
summary of the election results. So far as the wrecking of our institutions is concerned, may I point out that in my judgment the program of the C.C.F. is the only thing which will save our institutions. But the point to which I would refer particularly in this connection is the type of campaign waged against the C.C.F. in British Columbia and which, it appears, is to be maintained in this House of Commons.
For example, there was an indefensible and irreverent expression used by a man who was a C.C.F. candidate in the recent provincial election in British Columbia. That expression was heralded throughout the country as being representative of the general point of view of the C.C.F. Let me point out to this House of Commons that the expression to which I have referred was used fourteen years ago, but was dragged out in this election and quoted frequently, as if it had been uttered during the election campaign. That is not fair play, and I hope no hon. member in this house will defend it. For a year that particular candidate had been vice-president of the Union of Municipalities of British Columbia; for two years he had been president of the Union of Municipalities of British Columbia; for one year he had been chairman of the committee on unemployment of the Union of Canadian Municipalities, and he had been reeve of Burnaby. He had been living an eminently respectable life, and yet because fourteen years previously he had made a mistake, he was criticized.


Wilfred Hanbury: He does not think it is a mistake.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Hanbury) states the gentleman does not think it is a mistake.


Wilfred Hanbury: He does not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad the hon. member has made that statement. This is what the gentleman in question said in regard to the matter:
At the convention of trades unions of western Canada, very early in the year 1919, I made a chance remark-there was no speech-on the spur of the moment which I not only regret at this present time, but regretted immediately after it was made.


Mr. HANSON:: He does not repudiate it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, he says he made it, but he regrets it. I believe I recall it is written that Saint Peter denied his Lord three times, even denied him with an oath, but that fact has not prevented him from being held ever since in greatest reverence by a very large section of the Christian community.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: What has all this to do with the amendment, anyway?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
previously. I believe the hon. member who has just spoken was not present during most of this debate, or he would have heard the discussion.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I should like to know the relevancy of it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Telegraph-Journal of Saint John, New Brunswick, in its issue of November 14, 1933, commented on the British Columbia election as follows:
The result is more than a Liberal party success. It is a victory for the forces of sane and solid British principles over the forces of revolution and godlessness.
Mr. Speaker, I submit it is not fair that men who for some twelve or thirteen years have been known in this House of Commons and who represent a very considerable section of the population of Canada should be maligned in this fashion. There was even an Anglican clergyman, a dignitary out in British Columbia who wrote to a certain candidate asking an opinion with regard to religion. That candidate replied, and the Anglican dignitary came out and denounced the C.CJ'. because his reply had come from a C.C.P. candidate expressing the opinion on religion held by that body. May I say that the reply was not received from a C.C.F. candidate at all; it was from a member of another party which has no connection with the C.C.F.


Vincent Dupuis: From a socialist, was it not?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It may have been from a socialist. I fancy there are a few Liberals in Canada who might be quoted in a way which would not meet with the approval of the hon. member who has interrupted.


Vincent Dupuis: That does not settle the question.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But, so far as respectability is concerned, and without going into a detailed discussion on the subject, I might point out that the present house leader of the C.C.F. in British Columbia is the Reverend Robert Connell, a retired Anglican clergyman. If the C.C.F. had stood for godlessness and revolution I can hardly imagine that they would have selected as their leader in the legislature a gentleman who had been an Anglican clergyman.
In closing may I say to the hon. member from West Hamilton that I have gone into this matter because it has been introduced again and again in this debate and we have sat quietly; we have not made any attack upon the Liberal party or the Conservative 
party but have simply tried to defend ourselves against what I believe to be' unwarrantable misrepresentations.
As we look over the situation in Canada and in the world, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that our problems are too serious for us to spend very much time in this kind of party bickering. I believe that the time has come when the people of Canada are expecting some action to be taken. We have not confidence in this present government, as is indicated by our vote the other night and by our own amendment. But at the same time, if the present government would give us a lead in the way of a solution of the problems I have indicated, I think it would receive the full support of members in this corner of the house. We are far more concerned with the condition of the people in this country than we are with the party game. Many of us come directly from the people and are living close to them and we realize the seriousness of the situation. There is hardly anyone who does not recognize that democracy is on trial to-day. People outside are saying, what good is parliament; what is parliament for if it cannot solve these big problems of unemploy' ment, a demoralized agricultural industry, and the intolerable burden of debts?
We have been departing very largely in recent years from our older Canadian ideals. In the earlier days we believed that everyone should have a chance. I do not believe that it can honestly be said by any member here to-day that in these days every Canadian has a chance. I think of all these young people who are growing up in our homes; they have not the chance that their fathers had; they have not even the chance that their grandfathers had, because if their grandfathers worked hard enough and slaved long enough hours they had a chance to make a decent living. But our people under modern conditions have not even a chance to work. So I say we are departing from the old Canadian ideal that everyone should have a chance.
In the old days when our forefathers settled here all men were more or less equal. One might have fifty acres, another a hundred, and another two hundred, but substantially we weire all more or less on an equality and were good neighbours. To-day that is all changed. We have, on the one hand, great aggregations of wealth, and on the other hand, unemployment and insecurity. I believe the time has come when we shall have to get back to the older Canadian ideals and provide for a greater measure of equality among the

The Address-Mr. Arthurs
people. I do not see how Canada can be maintained as a democracy unless we have in very large measure economic equality.
With regard to democracy itself, it may be that we still have the forms of democracy, but I submit that as long as the big moneyed interests have so much influence in the formulation and control of the policies of this country we cannot be said to have any real democracy. As I pointed out the other day, in Newfoundland they have surrendered even the forms of democracy, and that former independent dominion is now being administered by a board responsible to London. The western provinces of this country were almost threatened by our Prime Minister a year ago, in a letter he wrote, that unless they could balance their budgets, or more nearly so, it might be that he would require them to appoint an administrator 'acceptable to this government who would carry on the affairs of the province. Where is our democracy going under those circumstances? Already many municipalities are in that very position. So I say that although we have the forms, we are losing the real sense and the real benefits of democracy. It would seem that at the beginning of a new session of this parliament we should once and for all forget our party squabbling and get down to real business.
I submit that we have a right under the present circumstances to demand that if the government is to remain the government of this country, it must make a determined effort to solve some of these outstanding problems that confront the people of Canada to-day.


James Arthurs: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire at all to enter into the general questions raised in this debate. My purpose in rising is simply to refer to a statement that was made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), speaking in this house on the 13th instant, as reported in Hansard at page 536. He said:
Now let me say here that an agreement was reached by the members of the committee last year-
He was referring to the committee on
pensions.
-and I am in the judgment of hon. gentlemen who are supporting the government- that equal representation would be given the personnel of the pension tribunals in the formation of the new Board of Pension Commissioners.
I had the honour to be chairman of that committee, and we went into the matter with very great care. At the commencement of the labours of that committee, we received
numerous telegrams, all originating from one source, protesting against the abolition of the . tribunals. This was taken to mean by many that they did not care to have the personnel dropped, and during the first three days of our debates in the committee it became increasingly apparent that in order to satisfy some of the members at least, an arrangement should be made.
The bill that we were examining was Bill No. 78, for the purpose of shortening the procedure in soldiers' claims, so that finality would be had within a shorter time. I pointed out to the committee that I did not believe that any government or the minister would accept a proposition of that kind. I spoke to members of the legion, to Major Roper, the head of the legion, on this matter, and pointed out to him that as it was very necessary in the interests of the soldier that the legislation should pass we might come to some other arrangement. Subsequently Major Roper and I prepared a resolution which passed the committee. This resolution was for the purpose of dissolving the old Board of Pension Commissioners and also the tribunals and forming a new board to be known as the Canadian pension commission. Nothing was suggested in any way or shape as to who should be the members of this commission. The only point that was raised was as to who should be eligible, and it was mutually agreed that the members of the then tribunals should be eligible for appointment to this commission. We had no power to go further had we chosen to do so.
I might also point out that in the latter days of that committee several other resolutions were brought forward which we were unable to deal with but which we passed, and instead of incorporating them in the ordinary report I had them forwarded to the Prime Minister for his attention. Had there been an arrangement such as stated by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre it could have properly been brought forward in some such resolution. However, there was no arrangement of any kind other than as I say, and I think that those members of the house who were present will bear me out in that statement.


William Daum Euler: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to-day to discuss the question of titles, or the relatively unimportant matter of the balance of trade, nor am I going to burn any incense at the shrine of the golden calf sometimes known as the gold standard, nor submit any figures to show whether or not this country is coming out of the depression and is again on the way to prosperity. I may say with regard to the

The Address-Mr. Euler
latter that any improvement which this country has experienced during the last few months has been very largely the result of the policies of President Roosevelt of the United States and of the psychologic and material effects which they have had in this country.
I have no desire, sir, to indulge in any partisan criticisms of the government in their administration of the affairs of this country for the last three and a half years. I appreciate the difficulties with which the members of the administration have to cope. Their every day routine duties in the ordinary course of events added to the problems which have come to the government during the present depression occupy their minds and activities but this does not excuse the administration from trying to grapple definitely with the vital causes of tihe present depression and from enunciating and putting into action policies which might be expected to improve conditions.
I am not going to indulge in recriminations but I think it should be remembered that the present government, and more particularly the leader of the government (Mr. Bennett), asked for the responsibilities with which the people of Canada have entrusted them. I do not intend to dwell upon the promises made by the Prime Minister other than to say that with the intelligence which he possesses to such a high degree he must have known that those promises could not be fulfilled. The people of Canada are entitled to some definite action in the long crisis in which the country finds itself. I regard the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) as my personal friend and he has stated in his own picturesque language that the house is on fire and that it is our duty to attend to the putting out of the conflagration. May I say to him that the house has been burning for almost four years and I think the people of Canada have nearly reached the conclusion that since the present administration has not had any great success in subduing the fire, it is about time we changed the fire brigade.
During the course of his remarks the other day the Prime Minister referred to the fact that each morning on his way to his office he passed the statue of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He made certain remarks in connection with that but I would say to him in all sincerity that when he enters this building each day he should read and reflect upon the inscription over the doors of this building which reads, "Where there is no vision, the people perish." If I have any outstanding criticism to make of the government it is this: I gathered from the remarks of the Prime Minister the other 
day in Toronto that he is convinced not only that Canada is sound-I believe that-but that conditions are basically sound and it is not necessary for him to take any particularly drastic steps to bring about what I consider to be necessary to correct present conditions m Canada. I am open to correction in quoting his remarks as sometimes my right hon. friend says that he is wrongly reported. I think he is on record as saying when he left the boat at Montreal some time ago upon returning from England that he was opposed to higher wages.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I explained that observation the other night; I was referring to the N.R.A.


William Daum Euler: That remark has left an unfavourable impression upon many people who, like some in my own city of Kitchener, are working for nine cents an hour or less. On another occasion he said that poverty is a blessing. Such a statement may be essentially true, it may have some merit but it does not fall with very good grace upon the ears of those who do not know from where their next meal is coming, unless it foe out of the charity of their fellowmen.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what he said.


William Daum Euler: Misreported?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Add the rest of what he said. He was speaking to young people.


William Daum Euler: There are a great many
people who are out of work to-day and who do not know from where their sustenance is to come.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was speaking to
young people; read what he said.


William Daum Euler: Speaking in Toronto the
other day-I am trying to be careful as I do not wish to misrepresent the Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You are doing it now.
The statement that I said that poverty -was a good thing is not the whole statement. I was speaking to a group of young people in connection with the Leonard foundation and I stated that in comparison with those who had the sustenance to secure an education, that sort of thing was best as it stimulated effort upon their part.


William Daum Euler: It may be that-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member should read the report.

The Address-Mr. Euler


William Daum Euler: -the special circumstances under which the Prime Minister made that remark would make it sound all right to those who were listening at the time. Being a younger man than the Prime Minister, perhaps I should not make this remark, but I do say that that sort of thing does not fall very gratefully upon the ears of Canadians who are in a position of dire distress.
The other day in Toronto he made the statement that the government had nothing spectacular to offer. I have no particular fault to find with that statement, but he went on to say that all he could suggest was hard work and thrift. Such a statement might be all right to people who have employment and who are receiving something in the way of wages with which they can exercise the virtue of thrift, but it is this statement that causes me to rise to-day. It seems to me that the statement that hard work and thrift are the only remedies for the Canadian people shows a mental attitude on the part of the Prime Minister that nothing is to be done, that he is going to stand pat and that we are not to have any definite policies to correct the conditions under which we labour to-day. He seems to think that everything is basically sound, our financial system, our industrial system and all the rest of it. He seems to think that if we only wait and work hard and apply thrift, everything will be as we should like it to be. With that statement I take absolutely definite issue. I do not see how any intelligent man who has observed the trend of circumstances in this country during the last few years and who has seen the tremendous changes which have taken place during the last ten, fifteen or twenty years in industrial relations and the crowding of people into factories in our cities, can help but realize that something is wrong. These conditions should be studied very carefully and a conscientious government should try at least to apply some remedies.
It is a definite law of nature, in the animal world, the vegetable world and the human world, that when great changes take place it is absolutely necessary that those who may be affected by such changes should adapt themselves to the new conditions. If they do not, the penalty is that they must perish. It would be unfortunate if we passed out of this depression-perhaps not to the heights of the so-called prosperity which we had in 1928 and 1929-and made no changes in our manner of meeting conditions which will recur again and again. I say with absolute conviction that when they do recur, they will be
worse than they have been during the present depression. I believe that many of the capitalists-may I call them that?-or the leading men of this country realize this fact to-day and many of them are quite ready to follow this or any other government that will institute some real remedy to provide a correction of the difficulties under which we labour. The statement has been made that this depression is world-wide. That may be perfectly true but it does not follow that we in Canada cannot do something to set our own house in order.
I do not propose to traverse the whole field of whatever remedies might be suggested; instead, I will confine myself particularly to one or two. And the leader of the C.C.F. has already touched very largely on 1 some of the question which I should like to discuss. If we are to find a remedy we must know the causes of the condition that is to be remedied. Of course, the real basic and fundamental cause is the selfishness of the human heart; there is no doubt about that. Every man looks out for himself, and it is perhaps not to be wondered at, when people have no certainty as to what is going to happen in the future to themselves and to those who depend upon them, that every man tries to secure for himself all that is possible. Perhaps it was with a realization of that fact that the Prime Minister-and I say this with all respect to him-made the statement about two years ago that nothing but the grace of God could save Canada.
I intended to speak of unemployment and the question of the debt, as well as of the Canadian National Railways, and then finally if I have time,-because it is the most important subject before us now-to discuss what can be done so that there shall not be, to put it bluntly, so great a spread between the wages of capital and the wages of labour, so that the man who works, the man who produces, may receive something that is more a just approximation to what he deserves than he has received in the past, which I believe is the cause, generally speaking, of the difficulty that faces us to-day. The remedies involve a change from selfishness to unselfishness, the realization if you like of the dependence of one on another, and the recognition of the great fact of the brotherhood of man.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Can you do that by act of parliament?
Mr. EUiLER: My right hon. friend has almost anticipated me, for I was going to say
The Address-Mr. Euler

that this is not within the sphere of practical politics and that we shall have to adopt some other method in the meantime until there is a fundamental change in the human heart.


An hon. MEMBER:: It will take a long lime.


William Daum Euler: Yes, I am afraid so. I would say this also, though all within the hearing of my voice will not agree wth it. Our difficulties come in great part from the fact that we engaged in a tremendous war, and I would express the hope that this country will refrain in future from entering into any great conflict unless Canada is itself attacked.
With regard to unemployment, one of the great factors is undoubtedly the introduction of labour-saving machinery. This will become more aggravated from year to year; it is a perfectly natural development, and I am certainly not opposed to it. Whether it interferes with provincial rights or not, I think it must become the policy of this government, either by a change in the British North America Act or through agreement among the provinces, that there shall be some legislation, some sort of action which will shorten the hours of labour so as to spread the work to be performed among as many people as possible; and then, when we have done that, having balanced our budget-and it is impossible to do this until such time as we have balanced our budget-we should have a reasonable unemployment insurance scheme to take up the slack which will exist for all time in the future.
It seems to me to be a reflection on civilization, to say nothing about Christianity, that in a country such as this, which produces all the food that is necessary for the people, which is dotted with industrial plants that can produce, in excess of what we need, everything that the people of Canada need, there should be in this twentieth century a million and a half people on public relief. If it is necessary as an instrument of national policy that we should have certain changes, increases if you like, in the tariff, I should have no objection to that, although I may say by the way that while at the moment I am not particularly criticizing the tremendous increases that have been made in the tariff, I am criticizing particularly the administration and the unwise and unnecessary difficulties that have been placed in the way of business so far as the administration of the tariff is concerned.
I spoke a moment ago of the necessity of balancing the budget. Possibly some of my friends in the corner do not agree that the

budget should be balanced, but I believe that before we can put into operation a reasonable unemployment insurance scheme we must balance our budget.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the hon. member include the railways?


William Daum Euler: I am coming to the railways.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does he include that as part of the budget?


William Daum Euler: Yes, I desire to make two suggestions whereby it seems to me we could approximate a balancing of the budget; and the first is in connection with the debt, which has already been discussed this afternoon. I need not say that we have a federal debt of something like $2,600,000,000, with a supplementary debt on account of railways of something like one billion dollars on which we have to pay interest; and the whole debt of the country, federal, provincial and municipal, amounts to something like eight billion dollars. It is merely necessary therefore to mention this sum to realize that it is almost impossible that we should ever be able to pay the interest upon it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member speaks of a billion dollars as the secondary debt. It i3 much more than that in view of the assumption by the dominion of the guaranteed obligations of the provinces. It amounts to twice that, as he knows.


William Daum Euler: I am quite willing to accept that; it simply assists the argument I am going to make.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


William Daum Euler: What I am saying is that the interest on the debt of the country is so great that it seems absolutely essential that this parliament should do something to reduce that interest. I know I shall be charged with repudiation, but there is only one class of possessors of wealth in this country who have escaped the loss that has come to everyone else, and that is the government bondholders. The working man has seen his wages reduced, the farmers are receiving the lowest prices almost in the history of Canada; the retailer has lost by reason of reduction in prices of stocks he purchased at high prices; and so far as the manufacturer is concerned, I may make this observation for the benefit of my friends to the left: many a manufacturer has seen his capital absolutely wiped out. I know whereof I speak, because it affects my own city of Kitchener and the town of Waterloo.

The Address-Mr. Euler
I say therefore to my friends in the corner and to some of my Liberal friends as well that while they seeim to have the notion that the manufacturer is constantly fattening on profits at the expense of the consumer, although it is undoubtedly true in some instances, the fact is that during this period of depression the manufacturer has had a mighty hard row to hoe in many cases. I would also say that the man who invested in common stocks and in most preferred stocks, and even in the case of industrial bonds, has taken a very heavy loss.


An hon. MEMBER:: Or in real estate.


William Daum Euler: Or in real estate; one could
mention a great many others. The point I want to make is, the holder of federal bonds or provincial bonds has been in every case receiving the interest to which his bond nominally entitles him. Therefore I say-and I know I am more or less open to the charge of repudiation, and I shall answer that a little later-I say that it does not seem to me to be unjust or unfair, in face of the emergency through which the country is passing and the difficulty of meeting our expenses, to ask the holders of government bonds to take their reasonable share of loss by way of reduction in interest. I suppose if the average of federal interest rates were taken it would work out as something like 5 per cent-


Richard Bedford Bennett: An average of 4-6 per
cent.


William Daum Euler: I had thought it was more
nearly 5. Certainly as far as the provinces are concerned the rate may very well be 5 per cent and perhaps a little more.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A little under 5 per
cent.


William Daum Euler: And that probably applies
as well to the municipalities. I am going to suggest very seriously to the government that they should now-not in 1937-take some steps by which the interest rate on federal indebtedness should be reduced to, I might say, 3 per cent. If that could be done this country would save something like thirty to forty million dollars.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not want to take
the hon. gentleman's time without his permission-


William Daum Euler: It is quite all right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With his permission then I would point out that that is one of the very things that has been considered; but 74726-39
this is a debtor country, and we have a substantial amount of municipal, provincial and federal bonds domiciled abroad, especially bearer bonds, and while the great conversion we did carry out of $640,000,000 was down to 4} per cent, to carry it below that would be practically asking the people outside this country, over whom we have no control, to accept a lower rate, which would be repudiation.


William Daum Euler: I am glad the right hon.
gentleman has drawn my attention to that, because I had intended to mention it, and I fear it would have escaped my attention. I am not referring at the moment to bonds which are held outside of Canada. But the Prime Minister knows, and perhaps members of the house know, that about 73 per cent of the bonded indebtedness of Canada is held within Canada itself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is federal bonds.


William Daum Euler: I am speaking of federal
bonds. I know that so far as provincial and municipal bonds are concerned it is not so. Of that 73 per cent something like three-quarters is held by the great financial institutions, insurance companies and others-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is
very patient, I will not interrupt unless-


William Daum Euler: It is all right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is that very fact that
causes the difficulty. Insurance companies base their statutory reserves upon a given rate of interest over a period of years, they have made all their computations on that rate, and that is the reason they have held these bonds. In this feature, concerning life insurance companies in this country, both British, American and Canadian, lies one of the very greatest of the difficulties. This matter has been carefully considered by the government on many occasions.


William Daum Euler: I am glad to hear that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend will see the point at once.


William Daum Euler: I understand the argument my right hon. friend is making. However, without questioning his sincerity in the slightest, I am not entirely convinced. I think that the insurance companies, and other financial institutions such as the banks own about twenty-five per cent of the bonds that are held within Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, no.

The Address-Mr. Euler


William Daum Euler: I may be wrong, but I am so informed. I am not convinced that it would not be possible for them voluntarily to reduce the rates of interest by at least one or one and one-half per cent without seriously impairing their obligations to policy-holders. It is after all only a small proportion of their total assets.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a very substantial proportion.


William Daum Euler: How that might be done one might suggest. By the way, it occurs to. me that it was the expressed opinion of the Prime Minister, when he was leader of the opposition five or six or more years ago, that the funds of the insurance companies could be made to serve the national financial purposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In a 4 per cent consolidated debenture, yes, and I was denounced as a repudiator of capital.


William Daum Euler: So my right hon. friend, I am glad to say, at one time considered something approximating what I am suggesting at the moment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Still is, every day.


William Daum Euler: During the war it did not seem to be very difficult to get the people of Canada to buy bonds, and buy them freely. I think the condition that we are in to-day is just about as desperate as it was during the war. I would offer this suggestion, that the government might very well proceed with propaganda, shall we say, in a campaign, patriotic campaign if you will, asking the people of this country, the bondholders, to consent voluntarily to a refunding at a lower rate of interest of the bonds they hold.
The question of repudiation has come up, but I do not think it would be repudiation if those who did not care to receive a lower rate of interest were paid back their principal, which might be refunded in some other way, perhaps the way suggested by my right hon. friend some years ago with respect to the funds of insurance companies. And although two wrongs do not make a right, we have had repudiation before, we are having repudiation to-day, if that were an excuse. The great United States of America, the wealthiest nation in the world, has repudiated its gold indebtedness under its bonds. They promised expressly that they would be redeemed in gold, and to-day they are not carrying out that promise. By act of congress that has been discontinued. And I think it is not too much to say that France and Italy-yes, and Great Britain-have practically repudiated their debt to the United States. I could 
come nearer home, and while it is perhaps a small matter, and while there may be a difference of opinion with regard to this, even this government has repudiated, if not its legal responsibility, at any rate its moral responsibility to pay interest and) full principal upon certain securities of companies now consolidated with or included in the Canadian National Railways. So it would not be an entirely new thing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am afraid the hon.
gentleman is wrong. He refers to the Guelph railway?


William Daum Euler: Yes.
M-r. BIENNETT: The government was not in any sense obligated on that.


William Daum Euler: We had an argument on
that in this house before. I said a moment ago that perhaps they are not legally responsible, but I do contend that there is a very decided moral responsibility with regard to that matter.


Robert James Manion: May I interject? I looked into it very thoroughly, and I do not think there is any moral or other responsibility on the government in that regard.


William Daum Euler: I am afraid we will just have to differ on that.
Mr. BlEiNNETT: There is always a difference as to moral responsibility.


William Daum Euler: If we could accomplish what I have suggested we should reduce our interest obligation by a very substantial figure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What rate had the hon.
gentleman in mind?


William Daum Euler: The rate I had in mind was 3 per cent. In Great Britain they converted on a basis of 2| per cent, I think.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A perpetual 2i per cent.


William Daum Euler: Now I must hurry on with the matter of the railways. Let me say at the outset that I deprecate very much the apparent tendency on the part of certain members of the government, and perhaps more particularly the Prime Minister, in the house and out, to place the responsibility for the condition of the national railways upon the shoulders of the Liberal party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: My right hon. friend says
"hear, hear." My own opinion is, and it is backed up by his own, which I shall read in a moment, that the responsibility belongs to both parties.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely.

The Address-Mr. Euler


William Daum Euler: But I understood my right
hon. friend to say it rests upon the shoulders of this party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The initiative in respect
to grants of public money can only be with the government, and no Conservative government was in power when any of these obligations came into being.


William Daum Euler: I am sorry I have not more time to debate that question with the Prime Minister.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: You lost half an hour
by interruptions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A little exaggeration, as
usual.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps the Speaker will be a little indulgent. It is not in the interests of the national railways or of the Canadian people jthat we should have recrimination of that kind. It ought to be the duty and the desire of every one of us to do all we possibly can to find a way out of the trouble in which we find ourselves by reason of the difficulties of the Canadian National.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: My right hon. friend in the
session of 1916 made the following statement:
After carefully studying this railway matter during the past year, the best conclusion that I can arrive at is that all of us-and I mean the people of Canada as a whole-were somehow infected at that time with a disease which came from over-speculation and optimism run riot, or run mad.
He blames the whole people of Canada, and then he refers to certain speeches he made in western Canada in which he says he objected to taking over these roads and making these loans. Then he goes on to say:
... I was very severely criticized by my own friends, and was told that I was lacking in faith in my country and was filled with a spirit of pessimism. So, in the ultimate analysis, under our democratic institutions, the people themselves must accept the responsibility for the condition that exists, and neither the opposition nor the government is vitally concerned, because no government would have initiated the legislation in the terms in which it was initiated except upon the demand of the people manifested by resolutions passed by boards of trade, municipal councils, farmers' unions and associations, and merchants throughout' the country-
Then again, with regard to the taking over of the obligations of the railways-and this does not reflect any particular credit upon either of the great political parties-he says:
The reasonable explanation-and it is a very simple one-is that an election was coming on, We ought to face that proposition very frankly;
74726-39i
and, what is more, that is a case in which both parties must accept responsibility, because the Conservative party of that day, sitting in opposition, did not oppose that $35,000,000 grant to the Canadian Northern Railway; they did not challenge it. The records show that, and the Conservative party must accept responsibility with the Liberal party, because if the one party initiated this legislation, it is a case in which the other party did not oppose and, not opposing, must share the responsibility.
I do not know that I should quote further, Mr. Speaker, but if I might I would suggest to the Prime Minister that he follow the very good advice he gave in the same speech from which I have been quoting, when he said:
I have heard a great deal said as to who is responsible for it. But all the talk in the world as to who is responsible for this situation will not relieve us from the condition that now confronts us.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have to carry it at
the moment.


William Daum Euler: Yes.
If there is one thing the war has taught us, it is that recriminations do no good; we have learned that at least.
If I cared to do so I think I could place a good deal of the responsibility for taking over the Grand Trunk Pacific in 1919 upon the Conservative party, and I do not usually bandy party names to any great extent. It was a Conservative government that took over those roads and assumed, I think, a liability of something like $1,800,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: $1,700,000,000.


William Daum Euler: What is a mere hundred
million dollars? I am not going to quote him, but the right hon. gentleman, who was not then prime minister, made a statement to the effect that instead of being taken over, with all their liabilities, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern should have been allowed to go into the hands of receivers and have the water squeezed out of them. If that had been done the obligations which we are now carrying would have been wiped out to a very great extent. That ought to have been done, no doubt, but we all have to accept responsibility, including myself because I was in the house when the railways were taken over. I think, however, it absolves this party from at least a great share of the responsibility for the debt under which the national railways are suffering now; I think that follows.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The resolution was moved by Mr. Pugsley, who wanted to pay them $45,000,000.
The Address-Mr. Euler


William Daum Euler: In any case I know my right hon. Iriend was in favour of allowing the roads to go into the hands of a receiver.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And he and Mr. Nickle were the only members in favour of that suggestion.


Vincent Dupuis: You should have followed the advice of Mr. Lanctot and sold them for $1.


William Daum Euler: I wonder, if we had further railway problems, if my right hon. friend would take the same attitude and say the road should go into the hands of a receiver?
What can we do about the railway debt? Some ten years ago in this chamber I made the suggestion-and I mentioned this last year-that the government might very well investigate the advisability of merging the two great railways, amalgamating them if you like. That suggestion did not receive a great deal of attention at that time; conditions improved and nobody said anything more about it. I have repeated that suggestion on other occasions, because I believe it has to come in order that we may get rid of the annual loss of $50,000,000 or $60,000,000 which we can ill afford to bear. If we had brought about amalgamation at that time we would have saved an amount equal to about one-third of our national debt, which I think would have been very desirable. In the last few months two very significant things have happened. We had the Canadian Pacific Railway come to this government and receive their backing, or their guarantee, to the extent of $60,000,000. Then last week, in the city of Ottawa, we had the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan), a member of this government, make the statement that unless conditions improved within a year, amalgamation or a merger or something like that might have to come.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Secretary of State made it perfectly clear that he was speaking for himself only, and in no sense representing the view of the government.


William Daum Euler: He is a member of the government, and it just occurred to me that perhaps he was flying a kite to see what the reaction would be.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I assure you that he was not.


William Daum Euler: 
An hon. MEMBER:: No, no.


William Daum Euler: I am not sure that hon. members agree with me on that. But I say to my hon. friends opposite and to those sitting about me that the people of this country are looking for some definite lead with regard to the correction of the conditions under which we are living. You say that that is interference with what is usually called rugged individualism. That term does not appeal to me particularly. Rugged individualism has done a great deal of harm; it has led to the piling up of great fortunes and the exploitation of the weak by the strong. We need only to look at the United States to see what has happened there. Disclosures have been made in that country, and it may be that similar ones will be made in Canada by the committee which was appointed only a few days ago. It should not be possible for great accumulations of wealth to take place in this country. It is said that law restricts personal liberty, and that if you have complete personal liberty you have nothing less than anarchy. I would have no hesitation in intervening-not unnecessarily-even with the conduct of business, in some respects, if it would mean the greatest good to the greatest number.
The people of Canada are looking for some action. My criticism is I do not think this government is supplying that degree of action to which the people are entitled. I say again, for myself, and I believe in this connection I can speak for all hon. members sitting on this side of the house, that when the government produces some policy which promises to be productive of the needs that we have in view, I for one would be very willing to cooperate with them.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Gagnon):: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Go on; we interrupted
the hon. member for some period of time.


William Daum Euler: I say in all seriousness that to me it appears that we have adopted and
have conducted through the last three or four years a policy of drift, hoping that the course of events and the passing of time will lead to a readjustment, and that these factors will perhaps automatically, or by tying ourselves to the Roosevelt plan, pull us out of the depression. I would say to the government- and I should like to say, if I may, something to encourage them-to proceed with some courage and some initiative on the principle that after all, Providence helps those who help themselves.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Mr. Speaker, we have just listened to a most interesting and, as we always have from the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), a very serious resume of his views. Those views, however, are not always entirely in keeping with those of his pai'ty, and it is interesting to wonder just how during the time he sat with the government he was not able to make more headway with such views as he has now expressed.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: We had no crisis at
the time.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: He began his speech with the very true statement that when there is no vision the people perish. I wonder just how truly that could be applied to the lack of vision shown during the days of prosperity we experienced during and following the war, and just how much of the perishing we find to-day is due to the lack of vision of that time. We know that it was during those periods that the nucleus of our present day troubles formed. Much of that which has grown to the present serious position in which Canada finds itself undoubtely had its very beginning and roots in lack of control and lack of vision in that particular time.
However, we are undoubtedly suffering today. The speech from the throne has been attacked in different ways. One method adopted has been a definite vote of want of confidence in the government. Reading the speech of the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), I was interested to find that he said the people of Canada had no faith in the present government, and that the proper way to judge a government was not by the number of members sitting behind it, but by the feeling of the people throughout the country. I wonder how he would correlate that statement with the view he expressed while I was in the house in the session of 1926, when, very definitely at the opening of the session he moved a resolution demanding from hon. members in the house, and not
The Address-Mr. Morand

from the people outside the house, the right to carry on. We have now before us the following amendment:
We respectfully regret that Your Excellency's present advisers have not taken such steps as are necessary to deal adequately with unemployment, to reduce the burden imposed by the public debt, and to put the agricultural industry on a 'basis that will insure to the farmer a decent standard of living.
The leader of the C.C.F. party has moved this amendment because as he has said he wishes to place his party and himself on record to the effect that they have no greater faith or belief in the opposition than they have in the present government.


Vincent Dupuis: He did not say that to-day.
Mr. MORAND ; I believe he said it when he began his speech. The hon. member is always very careful to state, at the beginning of his remarks, that the C.C.F. is not a political party. I maintain, sir, that they have certainly learned all the methods and ways that most political parties have adopted to try to gain power, and I am not too sure that their close association with our friends opposite has not resulted in schooling them in their method of approach, when trying to gain the reins of power.


Mr. VALLANCE:: We can teach them a
lot yet.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: One finds a great deal of similarity between the report of the Regina conference and the original platform of the Liberal party as enunciated in 1919. There is at least definite evidence of the same technique and the desire to spread widely those views which they purpose putting into effect so that they may take in all those people who, they believe, would be affected by a certain type of appeal. In the present instance the C.C.F. has gone one better by trying to keep itself free from the appelation of a party. They leave each roving band under its own direction and free to make an appeal in whatever place or manner it may best be made or can most successfully be worked out. I have no doubt in my own mind that each roving band with a particular chief, whether it be in the maritime provinces or in British Columbia, every night looks towards Ottawa for some general direction, hoping that the end of their labours will be rewarded in their arriving here and securing the power which they so much desire. It is rather interesting to read the labour code as set out in the C.C.F. platform and published in their monthly publication of August, 1933:
A national labour code to secure for the worker maximum income and leisure, insur-
ance covering illness, accident, old age, and unemployment; freedom of association and effective participation in the management of his industry or profession.
When one looks at the platform of the National Liberal convention held in Ottawa in 1919, one finds very much the same thing. For instance, I find there:
The representation of labour on federal commissions pertaining to labour matters; effective legislation for the conservation of human life and health; that in so far as may be practicable, having regard for Canada's financial position, an adequate system of insurance against unemployment, sickness, dependence in old age, and other disability, which would include old age pensions, widows' pensions, and maternity benefits, should be instituted by the federal government.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Would the hon. gentleman read the Conservative program of 1927?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I am now comparing the two schools at which my hon. friend has assiduously applied himself in the last few years.


Vincent Dupuis: As a good student you should go to the Conservative school. What do they say?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Every student undoubtedly reflects the school at which he has been taught, and one can see a very definite reflection in the make-up of this labour code of the C.C.F. If one were sure that it would be applied in the same way as the Liberal program of 1919 was, it would not be necessary to spend any great deal of time in combating the general policies.
We find that to-day the leader of the C.C.F. is very conciliatory in his talk. He is not so provocative, not so aggressive as he was in the first years he was here. Undoubtedly that is the effect of considerable travelling throughout the country during the last few months and a realization that the people of Canada are not ready to accept the full socialization of industry and a socialist government in this country. So, tempering his remarks and his methods in the hope of securing power, we find the leader of the C.C.F. much more conciliatory to-day.
The leader of the C.C.F., my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) always seems to take it for granted that within his group, perhaps within himself, rests exclusive knowledge of conditions of the country, that he and he alone has a full realization of the difficulties and troubles under which the people are now labouring. In speech after speech we always find him setting out all the ills and troubles that exist in the country. Let me assure him that there are

The Address-Mr. Morand
many on this side of the house, and indeed I think on all sides, who have just as keen a realization of the actual conditions and just as much sympathy for those who are suffering as he has. It is not a question of realization or of knowledge of what is taking place within the capitalistic system.
I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that there are many men who believe that all is well within the present system under which we are living to-day, but it is not my belief that the people of Canada are ready to scrap that system under which all the progress that we have witnessed in Canada and which has taken place in other countries since the early middle ages has been brought about, and substitute for it something new and untried in the hope that it may bring us better conditions and greater rewards. It is my belief that most of the people of this country are prepared for some changes. I believe that they are prepared to shed those barnacles which have undoubtedly gathered on the ship of capitalism ; there is no question of that.
I was rather interested to hear the hon. member for North Waterloo _ (Mr. Euler) speak of individualism. There is no question that free competition, free individualistic effort, is not the same to-day as it was when men were their own employers, or when an employer had only one or two employees, or when there was ownership management. Free competition and rugged individualism, once it becomes applied in large corporations, too often becomes an engine of destruction rather than an instrument to help make conditions better. There is no doubt in my mind that eventually, and probably very soon, there will have to be some control over these large corporations which to-day find themselves without control of themselves. When you talk of rugged individualism I often think of the workingman arriving at the shop in the morning, being told to hang his hat upon a certain peg, take his place at a certain machine, go through certain operations at a given rate of speed at a certain time of the day, and then return home with his day's work done. Just how much rugged individualism can he apply in that particular job? Whether he is able to carry on or not at the required rate of speed in our modern industrial plants depends entirely on his physique.
Sometimes I also wonder if the man who clips coupons from the bonds that made such a plant possible, a plant that he has possibly never seen, and the products of which are turned out by men that he has probably never seen and certainly does not know-I wonder whether that requires of the bondholder a
very great deal of rugged individualism. So far as those who are at the very head of these large industries are concerned, the executives, those who control, to-day and for some years past their individualism depends entirely on their ability to produce dividends. If they cannot do that, they are moved out and someone else takes their place. But that is not the case where there is ownership management, and that is something that will have to be taken into consideration in connection with these large concerns and be corrected.
It is also just as well-known on this side of the house as on the other side or in the corner, that people in industry to-day are not receiving the wages that they should receive to live properly. They are probably receiving all the wages that industry can give and continue to exist, but it is not sufficient to enable the workmen to live properly and carry out those duties and rights that an individual has in this country.
There is another thing that must be faced, and faced soon, by organized society because it is now very evident in every industrial centre, and that is that at the age of forty-five a man to-day is thrown upon the street.
I know whereof I speak. In the shops in my own city to-day a man of forty-five years of age has no chance of securing a position, and when a man of that age is in a position, ways and means are found of seeing that he is let out certainly by the time he reaches fifty. These things react upon society because men who have worked a great length of time at one job are not fit for anything else, and when they are thrown out of work they are unable to take care of themselves; for I defy any man to say that at present wages a man can work from the age of twenty to forty-five years and in that time acquire sufficient _ to take care of himself for the rest of his life. It cannot be done, and that is something which the state, which after all is organized society, will have to take into consideration, and undoubtedly the sooner it is done the better.
I could go on and mention a number of other things that even the return of prosperity as we know it will not right. It is said and believed by everyone here I think that we have reached the ceiling of production in agriculture. We are producing more agricultural products than can be consumed. We are not producing anything like what the land in cultivation and the machinery available will produce. A short time ago I read a statement made in a report, I think of an agriculture committee in the United States, to the effect that fifteen per cent or less of

The Address-Mr. Morand

the people of any nation could, if properly organized, produce all the food necessary for the rest of the nation. With these things kept in view there is no doubt that there must be some lopping off and some changes made in the control. But even though these things are facing us 1 do not think it is necessary to scrap the entire system and to forget all that has been developed down through the ages. We should not throw over all those things which the people stand for and which are based mostly upon natural rights and natural laws. We should not adopt a new system of government such as we hear explained in this house in such a flimsy and cloudy manner. We should not adopt a type of government which cannot effectively be put into operation.
It is said that this government has been a government of laissez-faire, that there has been nothing done. When I hear statements such as the one just made by my hon. friend across the way, that any improvement is due to the policies of Mr. Roosevelt, I sometimes wonder if real attention has been paid to what has been done during the last three years. Surely the changes which have occurred in Oreat Britain have not been due to Mr. Roosevelt. Surely some credit should be given to this government for the additional markets which were opened up through the imperial economic conference. Surely the higher prices received by the farmers of this country as compared with those received by the farmers in the United States is not due to the policies of Mr. Roosevelt. The farmers of Canada are receiving higher prices for their products than the farmers of the United States where Mr. Roosevelt's policies are being applied. This government had the courage to meet the situation. I am proud to be sitting behind my leader; I am glad to be supporting a government which had the courage to put on such tariffs as were necessary at a time when the whole edifice of this country would have been ruined with the dumping of commodities from other countries. Despite the cry of importers, despite the cry of those who would have gained for the time being through the importation of cheap articles into this country at the cost of our own industries and the exportation of our capital, they saw fit to put on a tariff of sufficient height to provide work within our own country.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Does the hon. member claim that it takes more courage to raise a tariff than it does to lower it?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: It certainly takes courage to do it. It took the proper knowledge of conditions as they were and the ability to apply that knowledge rather than paying heed to the popular appeal made at the time.
Surely some credit must be given the government for the fact that during the last few weeks of unprecedented cold not a single person has gone hungry or has suffered from the lack of proper fuel or clothing. I think the government deserves some credit.


William Daum Euler: There is no policy in that.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: There is no policy in that?


Vincent Dupuis: That has been done by the municipalities.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Yes, it has been done by the municipalities, but let me tell my hon. friend of what has occurred in my own municipality. Because of conditions over which they may not have had control or because of the lack of vision at a certain time, there came a time when they were not able to take care of their own people. The dominion and provincial governments then stepped in and they are now paying 100 per cent of the relief. Despite the fact that there are many people who are finding fault, there is not a single person in our town who has gone hungry or suffered from the cold.


William Daum Euler: Does the hon. member mean to say that the giving of relief strikes at the causes of the depression? Is it not merely helping out, the duty of any humanitarian government? It does not strike at the root of the trouble.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: There is no question but that it was the duty of the government, but they had the courage to face that duty.


William Daum Euler: You had the support of the whole house in that.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: We did not always have the support of the whole house. Your right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) was not always as quick to give that support.
We find that during the eight years that hon. friends opposite were in power and when there was great credit expansion, no control was exercised. This government has had the courage to bring before the house legislation to create a central bank, which will undoubtedly exercise such control as will prevent the large inflations and deflations of credit which have occurred. We find also that the construction of public works is being revived in an attempt to give work to as many as possible. Many of the provinces started such

The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Teace River)
a program but found it was too expensive. It was found that the carrying out of public works and the spending of money did not increase the purchasing power of the country as it should. The matter was allowed to drift, but the government now feels that it is justified in starting a building program in an effort to get as many of our people back to work as possible. We must not forget that the mere spending of money does not increase the purchasing power of the people. For the last three years I have heard my hon. friends in the corner claim that the spending of money on public works would increase purchasing power. So long as the financial institutions of this country continue to call in their credits, all that this would amount to is that the money paid out would be used in the paying of debts and the wiping out of credits. You might spend fifty, seventy-five or a hundred million dollars and not increase the purchasing power by one cent. When the reduction of credit has reached a point where it can go no further, the money spent is distributed throughout the country and the purchasing power is increased.
I should like to suggest to the government that in the carrying out of this program consideration should be given to the possibility of diverting a certain amount of this money in order to buy up stock and provide for loans or bonuses to new industries, industries that are indigenous to the country, industries that will fill a void which we are now having to supply from outside. Perhaps I might give an example; I suggest the sugar beet industry. We import 85 per cent of the sugar we use in this country, and we have land that is capable of growing sugar beets, besides farmers who need that source of employment. We have a market in our own country and the difficulty is to finance such an institution. I would respectfully submit to the government therefore that they think seriously of devoting a certain proportion of that money to the financing of such an industry. It is different from public works. Once an amount of money has been spent to provide employment in the construction of public works, no further work is available; indeed, instead of providing work such a construction is only too often an expense. But when you spend a certain amount of money to assist in the financing of such an industry as I suggest, after the building program is completed there is continuous employment from year to year in the area where the building has been constructed.
I am satisfied that this government fully realizes the situation in Canada; I am satisfied that it is advancing as rapidly as it can
in the light of the knowledge it is bound to have, its members sitting as they do on this side; and I am satisfied that the people of Canada are more anxious to see a gradual but steady improvement in conditions, with a gradual change in that part of our system that may be at fault, than they are to see a new order brought about, a new order that might only turn out to be a Frankenstein which will destroy the very ideals they wish to have realized.
I have faith in Canada. I am not quite so much alarmed about the debts of the country as some others whom I hear around me. Let us not forget this fact-that the debts of a country, so long as they are within the country, are the riches of the inhabitants of the country. What we owe within the country is the richness of the country. It is taxable; it is wealth, and is just as much on the credit as on the debit side. Moreover, we have not tapped the natural resources of the country, and in Canada we can create ample wealth. In this dominion, with the knowledge, the education and the science we have at our disposal, we can create all that we need, all that is necessary to make this a real country; and I am convinced that with proper administration, slowly, if you will, but surely, and profiting by the experience we have had in the last few years, not being afraid of changes -and I do not believe for one minute that this government is afraid of changes, for it has given ample evidence that it is not- Canada will come out of the depression completely, as it is coming out to-day better than any other country in the world.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, while I am mot able to agree with every statement in the speech from the throne, I do not see in it anything to which I am opposed, any major legislative proposals to which I can object. When the bills embodying the legislation there referred to are presented to the house, differences of opinion about details may arise and we may change our view's regarding them, but with the proposals concerning agriculture, silver-I am not sure that I know much about silver-a central bank, the wheat agreement, the agricultural credit question and assistance to the provinces, in principle I am in hearty accord. That is the reason I voted as I did the other day on the straight want of confidence motion, a motion that was purely negative and con-
618	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Peace River)
tained no constructive proposal. For years I have taken the stand in my constituency that I would not support such a motion except when a vote of want of confidence was practically the only way to deal with the question at issue, and especially not when there was before us a definite proposal in the way of a program of legislation.
However, while I agree with these proposals, I do not think they go far enough. I have at times voted on various proposals affecting unemployment, agriculture and debt that I think require attention, and for that reason I intend to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). We have heard a great deal in the last four years about depression, and how Canada is pulling through. We have' heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) say the banks were-what was it, the sheet anchor of the country? But my impression is that it is the farmers who have been the sheet anchor of the country. I am not saying that I know a great deal about the industrial centres of eastern Canada, but I submit that what has been going on on the farms of the west during the past four years is practically the conscription of the life savings of the farm population of my section of Canada, and that has largely helped Canada to weather the depression as well as she has. It may be a fine thing for an industry or institution to be able to declare dividends under the present circumstances-I do not think it is; there may be a difference of opinion about that-but the people who have been willing to put in ten hours a day working on the land or elsewhere and who have been selling their produce for about half the cost of production and even lowering their standard of living-these are the people who in my opinion have made the major contribution towards enabling Canada to weather the storm of the depression. I do not believe that this lowering of the standard of living is a good thing in itself, but they had to do it; only in this way have they been able to meet the prevailing conditions.
While I agree that there may be difficulties with regard to finance and credits, insurance companies, banks and railways, I do not believe there will be any greater difficulty in adjusting these matters than there has been in the adjustment of the agricultural and farming people to the very trying situation of the last four years.
Unemployment has been pretty well discussed: I will not touch it except to say as to public works, that so long as we do not have to go outside of Canada to obtain material or tools for the purpose, and the works are

necessary, I cannot see that we shall impoverish the country by proceeding with them, and we ought to be able to make the necessary financial adjustment to do so.
A great deal has been said as to the public debt and the debt of the national railways, and whether it was increased or decreased during certain years. It is possible, I think, to make a showing as to reduction of debt in various ways, but what we have to deal with in Canada is not merely the railway debt, not merely the debt of the dominion, the provinces or the municipalities, but all debts, including private debts. Under present conditions, where the ordinary industrious farmer in Canada cannot pay his debts or in most cases even his interest, there is need for a tremendous readjustment of price levels.
There is a reference in the speech from the throne to the improvement of prices in Canada, and the suggestion is that it is due to the wheat agreement. I think the improvement in wheat prices in Canada has been due not to a rise in wheat values in the world market so much as to a lowering of the value of money on the North American continent. Other factors may have entered into it, but in my judgment that is the chief one. I believe that by stabilization of a reasonable volume of money in circulation, and by putting hack into circulation some of that $900,000,000 that our banks have taken out of circulation in the last four years, we will find means of improving price levels within the Dominion of Canada and so making it possible to come nearer to balancing our budgets and paying our debts with reasonable interest charges thereon.
I am in favour of inflation. I do not believe the statements that have been made in this house against inflation are worth the breath they took to utter. But I do not mean that I am in favour of uncontrolled inflation. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), speaking of inflation a few days ago, referred to Europe. There is no question that inflation in Europe, Germany and Austria, for example, was uncontrolled; money was inflated a hundred thousand times. I think I gave figures last year to show that if we in Canada inflated to the extent they did in Germany a bushel of wheat would be worth something like $700. Great Britain went off the gold standard. She did not go off; she was bucked off. Coming east for this session I remember reading a story about a famous horse called Midnight and the last bucking contest in which it took part. This horse never had been ridden, and the best cowboy

The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Peace River)
they were able to get in a certain part of the United States was thrown in two seconds, though he was supposed to stay on the horse for eight seconds. Great Britain tried very hard to stay on the gold standard. A national government was organized; an election was held, after which the national government held a large majority in the House of Commons. This was all done to keep Great Britain on the gold standard, but within a very short time she was off the gold standard because she could not stay on it. Instead of that being a bad thing for the world, in my judgment it was a good thing; it was the first big step towards reflation, reasonable inflation, and the rise of world price levels. When the United States, under President Roosevelt, undertook to follow that lead in a more vigorous way than Great Britain has undertaken so far, it was another big step towards rescuing the world from a large measure of debt and depression. I think if the government has made one mistake in the last two or three years that is more to be regretted than any other it was the determination to hang on to what was called sound money, to O.K. deflation and refuse to follow Great Britain's lead and1 go off the gold standard in order to allow a reasonable depreciation or devalutaion of the money in the Dominion of Canada. As we increase the supply of money we decrease its value, just as we do in connection with other things.
I intend, Mr. Speaker, to vote for the amendment, and I also intend to vote for the speech from the throne. According to the rules of the house, that have been drawn up for two parties, that may be quite inconsistent. It may be inconsistent to vote no confidence in -the government and then to vote for a measure containing a number of proposals practically all of which I favour. But is that any more inconsistent than it is to vote against the address and then turn around and support the legislation after it is presented in this house? As I said the other day, in connection with these votes you are right and wrong no matter what you do. I intend to do what I think is the common sense thing to do in all the circumstances, in relation to my convictions with regard to the measures proposed.
I am not a lawyer, but I have heard a few constitutional arguments in this house; I have formed some opinions of my own, and I intend to discuss them this evening. The other day the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) went on to discuss the significance of the three recent by-elections, and he added that the government had lost the confidence
of the people because of unredeemed promises. During the course of his speech he quoted Mr. Gladstone and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman as having expressed views which support the position he took the other night when he asked that the government should resign and go to the country. But there has been some change in constitutional practice since the days of Gladstone and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. What about the days of the Labour government in Great Britain? I may be wrong, but I do not recall any case when Mr. Gladstone was defeated in the house on a government measure and refused to go to the country. Under Ramsay MacDonald and the Labour party, however, we had votes of that kind time and again in the British house. I remember seeing one newspaper report that stated that the government had been defeated seven times and still did not go to the country. That was a relaxation of the previous constitutional practice.
We have also, Mr. Speaker, Canadian precedents as well as British precedents, and in connection with this very question I should like to quote what the ex-Minister of Justice said in this house. You will remember, sir, that in 1925 we had an election. If I am not mistaken the Liberals went to the country with about 117 members and came back with about 100, and when the house opened the firsit motion proposed by the then Minister of Justice was the following:
That in the opinion of this house, in view of the recent general election, the government was justified in retaining office and in summoning parliament, and the government is entitled to retain office, unless defeated by a vote of this house equivalent to a vote of want of confidence.
Then the argument began. I remember how Mr. Meighen jumped into this discussion with all his vigour. Perhaps I had better read Mr. Meighen's amendment:
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
Jn the late general election the candidates of His Excellency's then advisers, at whose instance the appeal to the country was made, were defeated in a large majority of the constituencies,
That nine ministers of the crown, including the Prime Minister, were rejected at the polls and have no seats in parliament,
That the party represented in the last parliament by His Majesty's opposition secured in the said election by far the largest support in the popular vote, and has substantially the largest number of members of any party in the present House of Commons.
In discussing the matter the then Minister of Justice said:
My right hon. friend is one in parliament, as I am one. We are all equal here, and the
620	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Peace River)
question whom parliament wants as the executive, the board of control, the cabinet in Canada at the present time, must be decided by members of parliament, not by the cabinet. This being the issue to decide which parliament has been summoned, after we have been charged with being usurpers who have no authority

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Lapointe:	Then why does my right hon.
friend object to having that issue decided?
Mr. Wilson (Wentworth):	The people decided it.
Mr. Lapointe:	Yes, the people as represented
in parliament, not the people of one province or another. The people of all the provinces of the dominion, as represented here by the members whom they have elected, are the judges.
That is perfectly plain. The position he took was simply this, that a government that obtained a majority vote in the house had the confidence of the country. That position was different from the position taken by Gladstone and Campbell-Bannerman, but it was the sensible position to take under all the circumstances, and it is the sensible one to take now.


Wilfred Hanbury: You do not want the
risk of an election yourself.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Who in
this house wants an election in February or March? If we had a vote of no confidence that defeated the government, would we go to the country without supply and without dealing with any of this legislation? I venture to say there would be conferences right away between the opposition and the government in order that some arrangement might be made to carry on temporarily.


Wilfred Hanbury: Why are you going to
vote for the amendment, then?


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is making the
speech?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I have
already explained why.


Mr. SPOTTON:: You do not need to explain to them.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I do not mean to be tricked by rules and interpretations of rules made by people with whom I am not in agreement. I will vote for any amendment which appeals to my judgment as having something constructive in it, and something which ought to be taken into consideration by the government of the day.


Mr. McINTOSH:: The government are preparing for an election; why not have it?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: This
practice of leaning on Mr. Gladstone who died years ago and on Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, rather than accepting general principles

and applying our own common sense to the situation, is a position I cannot take, and I do not intend to be snared by any such argument, regardless of who advances it. I was one of those who supported the position taken by Mr. Lapointe in 1925. I offer no apology for differing with him when he changes his position to-day.
Now then, "the government has lost confidence in the country because of its unredeemed promises". I have listened to the debate; I have heard the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) and I have heard the very excellent propagandist . speech of the right hon. gentleman who leads the official opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). What- have we got for a Liberal program? Very largely it is the Liberal platform of 1919 with a new date stamp on it. I am not going to say we ought to condemn the Liberal party because it did not carry into effect all the planks in its platform. I am not going to take that position at all. But I do think that some explanation ought to be made as to why, for instance, we are being told to-day that if they come back into office they will give us unemployment insurance. Everybody knows- and I think my friends will understand that I am making this statement because I believe it to be true-that we had fairly good times in Canada between the years 1924 and 1929. Any time Liberals review those years they say, and quite truthfully, that they did certain things-reduced for instance, the public debt, the national railways were prosperous. They say that they had large surpluses. Very well; why was not the country in a financial position to give effect to the promise with regard to unemployment insurance? Why do we have to wait until 1934 and run another campaign on it? At that time we had financial resources; we had the promise of the government in power to carry such a scheme into effect. I submit that question ought to be answered.
I now come to another point. Turning to the paragraph entitled Resolution on Encouragement to Agriculture contained in the booklet issued by the National Liberal Convention of 1919, I find the last clause reads as follows:
Your committee on agriculture begs to recommend that a special committee be appointed to prepare a resolution upon the banking system of Canada and the adapting of said system to satisfactory loans in connection with land and live stock and to present such resolution to your committee.
There is your intermediate and short term credit. But was effect given to that recommendation? It was not. Governments have

The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Peace River)
within their power that which acts as a great determiner in connection with the balancing of income and the readjustment and equitable distribution of the national wealth, namely, taxation. I do not think we have ever had a government which has really made use of the powers of taxation with a view to redistributing or distributing properly the national income. From the same booklet I find a paragraph entitled Resolution on Financial Condition and Taxation. From that paragraph I shall take the last section, but if any hon. member wishes to hear the rest of it I shall be pleased to give it to him. It is as follows:
That increase of revenue must be sought from an equitable and effective imposition and collection of graduated taxes, on business profits and income, applicable to all incomes above reasonable exemptions.
I call the attention of hon. members to the expression "graduated taxes, on business profits and income." It has been stated that the period of largest profits in the history of Canada was between 1924 and 1929. In the paragraph I have just read we have reference to taxes on business profits and income. Consulting the Canada Year Book for the years 1919, 1922, 1925 and 1929 as to collections under customs taxes, business profits and income I find the following figures:
	Customs	Business	
Year	taxes	profits	Income1919..	.. $147,160,188	$32,970,062	$ 9,349,7201922..	.. 105,686.645	22,815.667	78,684,3551925..	.. 108,146,871	2,704,427	56,248,0431929..	.. 187,206,332	455,232	59,422,323But	the Liberal party promised	a readjustment of taxation so that the indirect taxation falling on the consumers would be lightened. There is no question as to what the platform says about that, because we have the following paragraph from the convention booklet:
Whereas both Great Britain and the United States at present raise more than 80 per cent of their revenue by direct taxation, while Canada raises not more than 20 per cent; therefore be it resolved

And so on. It would seem that they were going to increase revenue by the business profits tax and by income tax.
So, Mr. Speaker, what we are being offered to-day as a substitute for government policy is very largely what was offered in 1919. I think it will be generally agreed that although reductions were made in the customs tariff during some of those years, notably 1924 and 1926, the general level was not greatly reduced. May I ask, with all due respect, if a new government coming into office to-day would find it easier to reduce tariffs than the
government which took office in 1921 with about fifty-one Conservatives in the house and practically the whole of the remaining members pledged to lower tariffs? What about the general trend of tariffs in the world since that time? What about the restrictions- quotas, and so on-which Sir Arthur Salter said were due largely to the wrong operation of the monetary policies of the various countries of the world? We were told very definitely in the speech of the right hon. gentleman who leads the official opposition that what we have of depression in Canada is largely due to the policies of the government. Well, I do not think the right hon. gentleman himself agrees with that statement. In the speech in which he was discussing the C.C.F. resolution moved last year by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) he said this, and I think it is a good thing that that motion was moved because it at least brought this forth:
I remember, at the time the Liberal party appealed for office and was returned to office in 1921, conditions were not unlike those at the present time.
He then goes on to argue what they did when they were returned to power. He says:
And that is exactly what we did, and what happened. After we came into office we reversed in many particulars the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite. They had been raising tariffs, we immediately lowered tariffs. They had been introducing other measures which were restricting trade; we took steps to remove those restrictions, and in a short time, as hon. members know, instead of huge deficits and increased taxation and continued depression this country had for seven years in succession surpluses instead of deficits, reductions in the public debt accompanied by reductions in taxation, and a great increase in trade and employment, with consequent prosperity throughout the dominion.
"We did it"-that was the whole argument. He went on:
I might say that my right hon. friend in the last general election, in opposing the then Liberal administration, adopted very much the same course, only he went a great deal further in what he promised. We were then at the beginning of a part of the present world depression. My right hon. friend stated that it was due to the mistaken policies of the administration. He put it all down to the policies of the administration then in office, and he sought to win the support of the electors by stating that if returned to office he would alter those policies and put others into effect which would end unemployment.
What is the situation? When the Liberal party was in office, "we did it," so far as everything good was concerned, and anything that was open to criticism was put down to the world depression. I ask, what is the
622	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Peace River)
difference between their attitude when in office and that of the present government? Exactly the same arguments were advanced by the present Prime Minister when he was leader of the opposition against the Liberals, then in office, as are being advanced by the opposition to-day, and we are being asked to take those arguments seriously! And the same replies came from the other side of the house at that time as come from that side to-day-that the government's policies were responsible for anything good and that the world depression was to blame for anything bad.


Vincent Dupuis: What are you doing?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am going to support all the legislation that I think is in the right direction, and vote against any legislation that I think is not.


Vincent Dupuis: You criticize

that is all
you do.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No, we
have moved an amendment stating what we believe should be done.
With regard to the raising of tariffs, it is said that they were raised because of what had been done in other countries. But there was a strong presumption that the Canada first policy was being used to protect certain people rather than to meet world conditions. That was the impression in the country, that the primary reason for high tariffs was the protection of certain people. I do not know that it is going to be so easy to lower them

certainly no easier than it was in 1921; not so easy, I think.
To hon. members who ask what I want, may I say I want a reasonable inflation. I want a reduction in interest rates, and that can never be done, in my judgment, until the government at Ottawa -undertakes to do it. I do not believe that this country can pay eight per cent except in a period of constant and continuous inflation. I believe we require what was mentioned this afternoon, an adjustment of the rewards of industry as between capital and labour, and I see no real constitutional difficulty in doing that, because if the Prime Minister can say to the western provinces, as he did, "Because we are giving you financial assistance we demand that you do so and so,'' it is just as right for him to say to industry, "Because we are giving you protection we demand that you do so and so in your industries." I maintain that there you have an opportunity to regulate and control by reason of the protection you are giving.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, it gives me very great pleasure indeed at the commencement of my few remarks to join with the speakers who have already tendered their congratulations to the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) and the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber), the mover and the seconder of the address. It must have been a source of satisfaction to them to receive the attention which was accorded to them from all sides of the house for their able addresses.
I had not intended to make any observations on the address. After listening to the debate, and reading the addresses that I had not the opportunity of hearing, I felt that the one outstanding fact in all the addresses was that there was practically no criticism whatever of the government with respect to its policy in agriculture. I would be the last person in the house to say that the condition of agriculture in Canada is anything like what we desire it to be, but having regard to the lack of criticism of our agricultural policy I felt that the great majority, nay practically every member of the house with the exception of three or four, has been sufficiently interested in agriculture to follow what has been done by this government by way of policy to assist it, and that their silence was their best appreciation. But after the right *hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) made the sweeping statement that he did, in which he was not followed by any of *his supporters except three or four-and may I say that because of the sweeping nature of the statement we paid very little attention to it-I felt that I was warranted in saying a few words if for no other reason than this. I say this in a spirit of kindly criticism of hon. gentlemen opposite, that during parts of the speech of the right hon. leader of the opposition towards the middle of the afternoon there were only twenty-seven of his supporters in their seats in this house. I think we can only take that -as an indication that he was not receiving their wholehearted support. I do not think it is fair for hon. gentlemen opposite to give that limited amount of support to their leader, no matter how much- they might disagree with him in the views he presented. I felt it rather as a personal thing, the right hon. gentleman being a neighbour of mine, and I can say in his absence that it rather hurt me that he did not receive more support. I would not suggest that hon. members should have remained in their seats for the full four hours and twenty minutes, but surely they could have agreed on a policy of shifts for relieving each other

The Address-Mr. Weir (Melfort)
so that at any time there would have been present at least one-third of the membership opposite.
But when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), the leader of the C.C.F. party, moved his amendment to the address, which amendment amounts among other things to practically a motion of want of confidence in the policy of this government in agriculture, I felt that I had no choice but to crave the indulgence of the great majority of the members of the house who had appreciated what had been attempted and done for agriculture, and make at least a few observations for the enlightenment of those who evidently have not been sufficiently interested to acquaint themselves with what has been done for agriculture.
I cannot do better at the outset than to read the statement made by the right hon. leader of the opposition in the course of his speech on the address. I quote from Hansard, page 28, as follows:
I say the government has not done for agriculture a thing -worthy of mention.
And again, referring to the farmers:
The cost of their clothing, boots and shoes, housing material, farm implements and the like, in fact the cost of everything which enters into production, has been increased.
Both statements are so sweeping that I am sure that everyone who reads them must have been impressed with the thought that the speaker had not given serious consideration to the matter, and that they were the words of a man in desperation. The last statement has been disproved by figures put upon Hansard during this debate by members of the right hon. gentleman's own party. I do not think any hon. member has any doubt as to whether there has been a reduction in the price of clothing, boots and shoes and the implements of production. If he has, all he needs do is to consult his storekeeper or, better still, the catalogues of the large mail order houses.
The right hon. gentleman states that the government has not done for agriculture a thing worthy of mention. He stated that last summer he went through the west and, therefore, had firsthand information as to the condition of the agriculturists in that part of the country. One would have thought that if this matter were so close to his heart it would have been the predominant note in his speeches. I ask the indulgence of the house for a few moments while we go with the right hon. gentleman in his trip through
the west. We find his first speech in Winnipeg reported as follows:
The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation was taking advantage of the discontent at present in the country to present to the people a plan which it claimed would lead to a haven of safety and comfort. But the effect of the plan would be to place the people under the direction of some dictator or dictators. The plan of the Canadian Cooperative Commonwealth Federation is revolutionary in character. It advocates state control of the great industries of the dominion and of Canada's financial organizations. It assumes that state control of everything will result in liberty. In reality the effect will be to destroy liberty.
I should like to repeat part of that statement, and in doing so I am sure it will recall to the mind of every hon. member in the house the speech of the right hon. gentleman during the debate on the address, a speech which lasted for four hours and twenty minutes. I repeat:
The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation was taking advantage of the discontent at present in the country to present to the people a plan which it claimed would lead to a haven of safety and comfort.
I was in Regina when the right hon. gentleman spoke in that city, and there again he almost breathed words of fire and brimstone against this organization. We will follow him. A report in the Prince Albert Herald, a Liberal paper, in connection with the right hon. gentleman's speech at the "Ridge" picnic, is as follows:
Two-thirds of the resolutions passed at the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation's conference at Regina can be endorsed by the Liberal party because they embody the principles of liberalism, Mr. King stated.
He is reported as having said at Wainwright on August 10 that "as a matter of fact three-fourths of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation's program was almost identical with Liberal policies." That was within a week. One would naturally expect that in his next speech the percentage would be still higher, but we find that he is following his usual inconsistency. The Winnipeg Free Press, which is not considered a Conservative paper, reports the right hon. gentleman as having said at Wetaskiwin on August 12 that "the whole thing is a sham and delusion." Addressing a number of farmers at Estevan he is reported to have made this statement:
Had I been Prime Minister of Canada in the last three years you people would not be in the condition in which you are to-day.
Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia) I was there and he did not make that statement.


Mr. ERNST:: You are quite sure he was wrong if he did.
624	COMMONS
The-Address-Mr. Weir (Meljort)


Robert Weir: The condition of the agriculturists in Estevan which the right hon. gentleman claimed he would right is best shown by the crops they have harvested. The approximate yield of wheat in the Estevan district in 1930 was six bushels per acre; in 1931, it was almost a complete failure; in 1932, is was six bushels per acre and in 1933, two bushels per acre. I do not think even his most ardent admirers would go so far as to say that the right hon. gentleman could have corrected such conditions. Therefore, he could not have meant that. Even accepting the correction of the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. McKenzie), that the right hon. gentleman did not say what he is reported to have said, I think it could truthfully be said that had he been prime minister for the last three years the people would have been in a different position. I need no more proof of my argument than the words of the right hon. gentleman in this house which showed his attitude towards relief in the province of Saskatchewan as compared with what has since been done by the present government.
Before dealing further with the right hon. gentleman's remarks, I shall take a few minutes to deal with certain criticisms made by hon. members opposite during this debate. The hon. member for Assiniboia is reported on page 407 of Hansard as follows:
As a matter of fact, right to-day, although, as the right hon. gentleman mentioned, the hog market in Canada is very good, it can be of no benefit to those people who have no feed for their hogs and cannot fatten them for the market. He did not mention -wool. Last year in my constituency wool was selling for' from seven to nine cents per pound.
I went to the trouble to look up the prices paid last year for wool, realizing that in the northern part of Saskatchewan a higher price was being paid. I communicated with the Canadian Cooperative Wool Growers Limited in Toronto, and I received the following telegram with reference to the wool market in Saskatchewan:
Net prices paid to growers southern Saskatchewan their station on main grades of wool follow. Fine staple 14J cents; fine medium staple 15 cents; fine medium clothing 14 cents; medium staple 14^ cents; medium clothing 13A cents; low medium staple 12| cents. Fine medium staple comprised over forty per cent of the clip. Next in order fine staple and medium staple.


Mr. BROWN:: What date is that?


Robert Weir: February 9.


Albert Joseph Brown: 1933?


Robert Weir: 1934. I made my inquiry after the hon. gentleman's statement.


Mr. DONNELLY:: What time did the prices
cover?


Robert Weir: They are the prices paid for the 1933 clip of .wool. To make certain that they would be representative I wired to the same association asking them if these were representative prices paid, and what proportion of the wool clip they purchased. This is their reply:
Toronto, Ontario,
February 10, 1934.
Hon. Robert Weir,
Minister of Agriculture,
Ottawa, Ont.
Of southern Saskatchewan range wools we handle ninety per cent and about forty per cent of the domestic farm flock wools. Our average price paid net to farmers their station on Saskatchewan farm flock wools twelve to twelve one-half cents. Same average would apply southern Saskatchewan farm flocks. Average price paid range wools southern Saskatchewan fourteen to fourteen one-half cents. Range type wools constitute more than half total wool production southern Saskatchewan and average net price paid range and domestic types together thirteen three-quarter cents.
Canadian Cooperative Wool Growers Ltd.
Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia); Ninety per cent of the wool in my particular part of the country was sold at from seven to nine cents, and smuggled across the line into the United States.


Robert Weir: Accepting the horn, gentleman's statement that ninety per cent of the wool in bis district was smuggled across the line at seven to nine cents, I can hardly believe that the farmers in his constituency are so wanting in intelligence that when a cooperative organization like the Canadian Cooperative Wool Growers Association is purchasing ninety per cent of the wool at the price they did pay for it-


An hon. MEMBER:: They did not.


Robert Weir: This is their own statement and I can certainly vouch for it that in our part of the province in the north, where we did not have fine wool sheep, our prices were considerably above from seven to nine cents.


Albert Joseph Brown: What date?


Robert Weir: This is the 1933 dip.
One other statement was made by the hon. member for Assiniboia in which he suggested reciprocity with the United States, and he referred to hogs as one of the items he had in mind. Translating that statement into dollars and cents, for us to have reciprocity with the United States in hogs would mean

The Address-Mr. Weir (Meljort)
a loss, based on prices paid in the week ending February 1, of three quarters of a million dollars for that one week. I am sure that no hon. gentleman, seriously concerned about the welfare of the farmers of this country, would suggest that we throw away in one week, for the sake of a fetish, a political argument, a sum of money so considerable as that.
I will now dwell for a few minutes on the argument made by the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) with reference to the price quotations given by the right hon. the Prime Minister in his speech on the address. I checked carefully the prices quoted by the Prime Minister; I was responsible for their preparation, and it is interesting to know that the prices quoted by the Prime Minister were taken from sales tickets of actual sales on comparable markets and comparable quality or grade of agricultural products, agreed upon for years as being comparable in both respects-agreed upon by what is considered in the United States the most reliable authority in that country, the United States Bureau of Animal Industry. The figures quoted by the Prime Minister were, as I stated, actual sales, and they were not extreme top sales but bulk sales. So that it is not necessary with conditions as they are to paint a picture other than is presented by the actual fact of the matter.
In connection with beef prices quoted, if we had taken individual sales-actual sales, not quotations-it would have been a dollar higher or more had we included baby beef; but we dad not do that. The hog prices quoted were not extreme tops in hog prices either.
The hon. member for Willow Bunch, speaking with reference to these prices, quoted as his authority the Chicago Tribune and the Winnipeg Free Press. I have taken pains to check the figures in that particular as well, although the -two markets are not at all comparable; it would be just as comparable, if not more so, to compare Winnipeg with Toronto or Winnipeg with Montreal as to compare Winnipeg with Chicago, even granting that the prices quoted by the hon. member are not in accordance with the prices -that are given for the Chicago market by the United States Bureau of Animal Industry. For example, the hon. member, at page 419 of Hansard, quoted steers from 1,100 to 1,500 pounds, on the Chicago market, at $5.60 to S7.35 and on the Winnipeg market at $4 to $5. The quotation given by the United States Bureau of Animal Industry, so far as the Chicago market is concerned, is $4 to $7.10-
lower, both at the bottom and at the top of the scale. For steers 700 to 1,000 pounds the hon. gentleman quoted, on the Chicago market, S5.35 to $7.35, whereas the Bureau of Live Stock Industry gives $3.50 to $7.35. For stockers and feeders, the hon. member quoted, for the Chicago market, $2.25 to $5.25, and the Bureau of Animal Industry gives $2.50 to $5. In each instance the figures given on the authority of the Chicago Tribune fail to tally with the figures given by the United States Bureau of Animal Industry.
Take now the quotations given from the Winnipeg Free Press. For steers, 1,100 to 1,500 pounds, the quotation is $4 to $5; steers, 700 to 1,000 pounds, the price quoted in the Winnipeg Free Press is from $4 to $5. Both these are correct according to actual sales recorded in the markets branch of the Department of Agriculture. Stockers and feeders are quoted in the Winnipeg Free Press, which the hon. member read to the house, at $1.25 to $2.50, and looking up the records of sales on that date-we receive information from the stockyards-we learn that there were no sales of stockers and feedlers at all on the Winnipeg stock market on that date.
We have calves quoted by the hon. member, so far as Chicago is concerned, at from $2.50 to $7.50, and in Winnipeg, $2 to 7. The actual top sale in Winnipeg on that date, and it was an actual sale, was $7.50, while in Toronto on the same date it was $9, although in Chicago it was $7.50.
As regards lambs, the figures given for Chicago by the hon. gentleman are $5.75 to $9, and for Winnipeg, $3 to $5.50. There were no lambs sold in the Winnipeg stock yards on that date. For good lambs, the figures the 'hon. gentleman gave from the Chicago Tribune were $8.75 to $9 in Chicago, and the Winnipeg price he quoted was $5.50. There were no lambs of any kind sold on the Winnipeg stock yards on that date. Quoting from the Chicago Tribune, the hon. member gave, for sheep, prices of $2 to $7.75, and in Winnipeg $1 to $2. There were no sheep sold on the Winnipeg stock yards on that date. I will leave it to hon. members if they require better proof of the weakness of any opinion against the agricultural policy of this government, when to make a case resort has to be had to such statements as that to which I have referred.
The hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) in connection with the wheat agreement made this criticism


James J. Donnelly: Does the hon. minister
mean to say that those prices were not in the Chicago Tribune or the Free Press?

626	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Weir (Meljort)


Robert Weir: The hon. member
cannot have heard me. I made it very clear that these prices he gave *were quoted from the Chicago Tribune and the other prices from the Winnipeg Press Press.


James J. Donnelly: And the papers were
wrong? Why blame me for it? Write to the papers and see if they are wrong.


Robert Weir: I am not blaming
the hon. gentleman for it.
Hon. members on the opposite side of the house said that this wheat agreement was all wrong, that there should not be this restriction in wheat acreage. I do not intend to go into the question of the wheat agreement, or to come to the defence of Mr. McFarland, who is operating on behalf of the western wheat pools; that was done very thoroughly the other night by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mir. Stevens); but I would like to say that we have on record statements by the premiers of the three prairie provinces, irrespective of the political party to which they belong, that this was a very essential step to take. The wheat pools of western Canada, which certainly represent a very large number of wheat farmers, have also put themselves on record as being in favour of this agreement. The grain trade, which has a vital interest in the marketing of our wheat, has also put itself on record as being in favour of it. I do not think it necessary to say more. I feel that we are in good company, certainly in the company of a very goodly majority as against the opinions of two or three hon. members who perhaps have reasons, other than the advantage of the wheat farmers, for criticizing the agreement.
I have read to the house the statement made by the right hon. leader of the opposition on his trip to western Canada, that he went there to study agricultural conditions first hand. I was in the west at the time the right hon. gentleman came there, and I think I am giving an honest and representative opinion of what people in the west expected with reference to that visit, namely that there . was coming to the west in the person of the right hon. gentleman one who had had such an opportunity as is given to few men in this dominion, one who in the capacity of Prime Minister for nine years had the opportunity of studying international finance, international trade and international relationships at a time when the world was prosperous, when things were certainly much nearer normal than they have been since. Equipped with that experience, he had had three years in the seclusion of Laurier House or his farm in the Gatineau hills to study conditions during the years that have elapsed 
since this government came into power. Was it then not reasonable that people in western Canada should expect from a gentleman with those advantages, in comparison with others who had been entrusted with the administration of government for a very limited time, some practical, some definite suggestions of a constructive nature to help our country at the present time? But I challenge the right hon. gentleman or any hon. member of the house to state one specific constructive idea that he gave. He stated, as has been his custom, that he advocated wider markets, lower tariffs; but I think the majority of farmers in the west at least feel that there is no citizen in the Dominion of Canada who should keep a more absolute and stricter silence on the question of wider markets and tariffs as far as agricultural products are concerned than the right hon. gentleman himself. For nine years as Prime Minister of this country he saw market after market in country after country absolutely closed in many cases to the agricultural products of this country, markets that were free when he took office but around which tariff walls were put up that made it impossible for the agricultural products of this country to get in. Yet he came to the west and talked of wider markets, throwing out the inference that if he were in office now he would assure wider markets and lowering of tariffs. The only tariffs the right hon. gentleman could lower are the tariffs of this country, and to lower our tariffs would certainly not widen the markets for our agricultural products.
To show still further the inconsistency of the right hon. gentleman on that tour I will quote from a paper whose favourable attitude towards the Liberal party I think no person in this house will dispute. The right hon. gentleman after that tour came east. He went to the Liberal summer school at Port Hope. That he was assiduous in his attendance is stated by the Leader Post of Regina in its issue of September II, 1933. The report says:
Two speakers addressed the final session, which was presided over by Hon. Vincent Massey, former minister to Washington. The second of the addresses was delivered by Rt. Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Liberal leader, who summed up the work of the conference. Mr. King had been in close attendance upon all the lectures and round table discussions for the whole period of the proceedings.
Yet in the Leader Post of September 6, 1933 we have this statement:
(By Canadian Press)
Port Hope, Ontario, September 6.
What immediate action could be adopted to increase Canada's exports, particularly of

The Address-Mr. Weir (Meljort)
wheat, was canvassed at Tuesday's session of the round table on tariffs at the Liberal summer conference here. At the end of the discussion, however, when everything from reciprocity to free trade had been discussed, no suggested solution was forthcoming.
The right hon. gentleman went through the west and gave the impression that if he were in power there would be wider markets and lowering of tariffs, yet at this meeting, where they were assembled for days with the best brains of the Liberal party in this dominion, and I believe some imported brains from outside the dominion, and with nothing else to engage their attention, they admitted, according to the report of their own paper, that there was nothing they could do to get wider markets other than what had been done and was being done by the present government.
I have taken longer than I had intended in this part of my address. I will now deal for a few minutes with the situation in respect to agriculture as we found it when taking office in 1930.
Tariffs had been raised in practically all countries of the world to protect their own agricultural industries, notaJbly in Germany, France, Italy and the United States. The surplus of bacon and butter that had been going from Denmark to Germany, France and Italy, also the surplus from New Zealand and Australia, being turned away from its accustomed market, had to flow into some market from which it was not shut out by tariff walls. The result was a greatly increased flow of agricultural products into the one free market of the world, that of the United Kingdom. That had such a depressing effect on the United Kingdom market that farmers were practically put out of business overnight and the world market was depressed out of all proportion to what had been the case previously.
In addition to that we in Canada had to face a condition that arose during the last year hon. gentlemen opposite were in office. By one action alone, the raising of the United States tariff against our cattle, about 145,000 head of cattle annually were shut out from the United States market. In 1929 Canada exported over 250,000 cattle to the United States, but their tariff was put up during the time hon. gentlemen opposite were in office to such an extent that only relatively few cattle could be shipped to that country. That great stream of cattle was turned back year after year for us to market somewhere else. Yet we hear hon. gentlemen opposite speak of wider markets.
In the east a similar condition arose in regard to a different commodity. For many years a great milk and cream trade had been growing up between the farmers of the 71726-40 j
eastern part of Ontario, the eastern townships of Quebec and the maritimes, and the United States, to such an extent that in 1927-28 the flow of milk and cream to the United States was sufficient to have produced 52,000,000 pounds of cheese. Imagine, then, the result of a tariff being placed against that milk and cream, turning back into the home market an additional 26,000,000 pounds of butter or, in terms of cheese, 52,000,000 pounds of cheese. Those were just some of the legacies from the previous administration with which we had to grapple when we came into power.
During the election campaign it was stated that if returned to power we would take steps immediately to give the Canadian market to the Canadian farmer. That has been done so far as it is possible for us to do it by tariff and other means. During the short session of 1930 duties were imposed to shut out the agricultural products of the United States and other countries that were coming in here and displacing our own products. If anyone has any doubt as to whether or not that action was appreciated by the fruit and vegetable growers, and as to whether or not they considered that they were given a better and wider market, I should like to read some communications that have been received from farm associations which have no political tendencies at all. I quote Mr. James E. Johnson, manager of the Norfolk Fruit Growers' Association, Sirncoe, Ontario:
The policy of the government in regard to the fixing of fair market values for fruits and vegetables has been of consider alble benefit throughout the whole season in the marketing of the apple crop.
Mr. MacDonald, president of the British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association, states in part:
The greatest stabilizing influence upon the marketing activities of the growers during the past season was the establishing of the fair market values by the Dominion government; it enabled the growers to market crops which previously rotted in orchards and gardens. It is estimated that $184,009 had been saved by the fruit growers of the province which otherwise would have been lost had the growers been compelled to meet the competition from the United States.
Mr. Somerset, chairman of the Ontario Marketing Board, states:
The establishing of the fair market value saved the Ontario growers from receiving ruinously low prices during the past season and prevented the marketing situation from becoming a chaotic condition and prices from dropping much lower than were realized.
These are typical communications. To show the extent t'o which the action of this government gave a wider market to Canadian
628	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Weir (Melfort)
fruit and vegetable growers I should like to put on Hansard the record of carload arrivals of seven of th'e chief commodities on twelve principal domestic markets:
1930	1931
Carloads Carloads Increase
Apples	
3,032	3,476	444Celery	
190	235	45Grapes	
72	350	278Lettuce	
15	27	12Onions	
617	886	269Pears	
52	59	7Plums	
9	12	3
The converse of the picture is given in regard to imported carloads of the same seven commodities:
1930	1931
Carloads	Carloads
Apples	
476	436Celery	
810	405Grapes	
1,056	541Lettuce	
1,304	862Onions	
725	431Pears	
515	415Plums	
96	58
In etajch case there was an increase in diomtestic carload shipments and a corresponding decrease in carload importations.


Maurice Dupré: Has the minister the total importations of these various products?


Robert Weir: 
John Vallance: Would the minister permit a question? In giving the exports of the Canadian products to the United Kingdom, has he now in front of him information showing the exports of ham and bacon as arranged under the Ottawa agreements? We are allowed 2,500,000 hundredweight. How much have we taken advantage of?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Thirty-six per cent.


Robert Weir: If it will be acceptable to the hon. member may I say I will deal at a later time with the Ottawa agreements with reference to a wider market for our bacon. As the hon. member for South Battle-ford (Mr. Vallance) knows we have a right to ship into the market of the United Kingdom free of duty 280,000,000 pounds in any one year.


John Vallance: Of what?


Robert Weir: Of bacon.


John Vallance: 2,500,000 hundredweight?


Robert Weir: Yes, or 280,000,000 pounds. During the first year that the agreement has been in force there has been shipped all that is available for export of the right quality, slightly over 70,000,000 pounds.

The Address-Mr. Weir (Meljort)
Now for a few moments I should like to deal with one other of our chief agricultural commodities, namely butter. When this government took office the butter situation in Canada was as follows: Millions of pounds had been shipped into Canada from the dominions of Australia and New Zealand. On top of that our milk and cream, as I said before, had been turned back from the United States so as to increase the production of our dairy products to the extent of about 26,000,000 pounds more butter or 52,000,000 pounds of cheese. The right hon, leader of the opposition has stated that if he were returned to power one of his objectives would be to put the tariff back to the point where it was when he went out of office. That would mean that at the present time the duty against New Zealand and Australian butter would be from one-half cent to one cent per pound. If that were true, making all allowance for extra freight and handling charges butter could have been shipped into this country from New Zealand in April last for a little over twelve cents per pound. It is a very simple matter to follow that back and to find what price would have been quoted for butter fat to the farmer living inland. To ascertain what the result would have been we will take one week, namely that ending April 15, 1933. The price of No. 1 butter in Montreal ranged from 30i to 31 cents per pound. For the month of April, 1933, Australian finest quality, which is comparable to Canadian butter, averaged in London 12-46 cents per pound. Allowing for one cent duty that butter could have been laid down for 13-46 cents, or a difference of 17-29 cents per pound less than the price our butter was bringing in Montreal. Applying this to the approximate production of 5,500,000 for one week represents a loss of $950,950. That is the effect of the statement made by the right hon. leader of the opposition. If his statement were put into dollars and cents instead of remaining, as it stands, a more or less theoretical statement, it would have cost the producers of Canada in the one week in April of 1933 which I have mentioned a little short of $1,000,000. That is for butter alone.
The hon. member for South Battleford has raised a point as to the effect of the Ottawa agreement in our bacon and hog industry. As a result of the Ottawa agreements the Canadian farmer received an advantage over the farmers outside the empire. That advantage consisted of the right to ship into the United Kingdom in any one year 280,000,000 pounds of bacon. That means that his bacon would be accepted without duty* and he would be selling on exactly the same terms
as would the British farmer. The British government as a result of an extensive campaign investigated thoroughly the whole hog situation of the United Kingdom and decided they would have to take some steps, no matter how drastic, to raise the price of bacon in the United Kingdom to a point where it would be possible for an efficient farmer at least to earn a livelihood. Roughly what they had in mind was raising the price of bacon to eighty-five shillings per hundredweight, and they were dealing with bacon comparable in quality to that produced in Canada-and may I state in passing that the hundredweight is 112 pounds. That was made very clear at the time the Ottawa agreements were discussed in the house. It was known to every intelligent member that that was the intention of the British government. Believing that they would carry out their intention, the result could be only this: the price of hogs in Canada was bound to go up, and to go up at least double what it had been previously. That would have been the case had they carried out their intention of raising the price to eighty-five shillings per hundredweight of 112 pounds.
Hon. members in the house and out of the house, and particularly Liberal members in western Canada, knowing that the price was going to go up, through their speeches, did almost everything in their power either by omission or commission, to discourage the farmers from going into hog raising. As farmers, they knew that at least ten or twelve months would be required before any man beginning to raise hogs would have a product ready for the market. Knowing that, nothing has so much incensed me since I took office as to find that men should, through what must have been purely fanatical, political prejudice, stand in the way of their fellow farmers selling their oats and barley through the marketing of hogs for at least fifty cents a bushel instead of selling them, as they must do otherwise, for twenty-five or twenty-six cents a bushel.
Immediately after the Ottawa agreements were made I visited Toronto, where I had called a meeting of all the provincial ministers of agriculture and the experts from all agricultural colleges and provincial departments of agriculture so that without loss of time we could immediately make available all the information in front of us and send it out to the different parts of Canada so that the farmers could prepare to take the greatest possible advantage of the offer contained in the agreements. I would much rather be in the position I am in, having done that and having worked in season and out of season

The Address-Mr. Weir (Meljort)
since to improve the quality of our bacon and hogs and to encourage the farmers to obtain the right quality, than be in the position of those people who through lack of support are responsible for the farmers in Canada from the east to tihe west losing the millions of dollars that they are losing now because these people were not frank enough to bury their political prejudices and tell the farmers of the advantage that was being offered them.
To show how serious the United Kingdom has been in the matter of raising the price of their bacon, I will give some of the restrictions that they have placed on the importation of bacon from foreign countries. The first restriction that they placed on the importation of bacon from foreign countries was 15 per cent. That did not have very much effect because Denmark, Sweden and other countries that exported to the United Kingdom, realizing that such action was going to be taken, dumped all their available bacon into the United Kingdom market. That left a great load on that market which had first to be lifted before any effect of the restriction could be felt. The Danes went further. They cut away the poorer parts of their bacon so that they could get entry into the United Kingdom market of a greater quantity of their highest class product.
In November, 1932 the government of the United Kingdom imposed a restriction of 15 per cent against the countries that had been exporting bacon to the United Kingdom market. The successive restrictions were as follows:
Successive restrictions on foreign bacon imports into Great Britain
Date	Additional	Total to date
	per cent	per cent
November 1932 .	. . 15	15February 1933.	. 24	174March 1933. .	. 21	20April 1933. .	. 2i	224May 1933. . .	* 2i	25June 1933. . .	* 2i	274July 1933 . .	- 2|	30August 1933. .	- 2i	324September 1933.	. . 10	mOctober 1933 .	, 	424November 1933 .	. . 16	584
That is, one year after they decided to take this action of shutting out bacon from the United Kingdom market to raise the price of bacon, they had put on restrictions amounting to 584 per cent. At first, because of the large quantity of bacon in England, the effect of the restriction was very slight, but we see that as it has been increased it has reached a point where it is now in a very fine balance, with the result that a week ago there was a very big rise in the price of bacon in the 
United Kingdom. If anyone has any doubt as to the relationship between the Ottawa agreement and the advance in the price of bacon in this country, all they have to do, and I shall be glad to supply the information, is to look at the restrictions that have been made and the increase in the price that has taken place in the United Kingdom as a result, and the corresponding increase in the price in this country almost step by step, while in other countries like the United States, which have not the advantage of this sheltered market, the price has not gone up to the same extent. In fact, it went down, although recently it has been going up.
I would like, in conclusion, to say this for those who are interested in the hog industry and in agriculture in Canada. We have been able to arrange with the packers throughout Canada during the past year that they will accept an off-type sow from the farmer and give him in exchange a gilt of the desired select bacon type, if one is available. So there is very little excuse for any farmer not having the proper type of breeding stock. To show the result of this policy and the improvement that has taken place in the hog industry I should like to give a few figures, and I quote them for one reason in particular. We so often hear the criticism in the east that we are going to get the western farmer interested in raising hogs, and that he will raise hogs that will be of an inferior type, with the result that it will have a depressing effect on the market, that these hogs will come on our market here and thereby counteract all the effort they have put into the production of a good quality hog. Reports have been sent out descriptive of the hogs in western Canada. I refer to one article by an agricultural writer in the Winnipeg Free Press which has seemed to percolate all through the east and given a very false impression of what is taking place in the west in the quality of our hog production. The write-up is descriptive of a number of carloads of hogs shipped from the west to Montreal, and the statement is made that not half of one per cent of these hogs representative of the west are select bacon and less than ten per cent are bacon. But the actual standing of the quality of our western hogs is shown by these figures which I will put on Hansard:
Percentage of Select and Bacon Hogs in the total marketings
1930	1933
Select	Select
bacon Bacon bacon Bacon
per cent
Alberta .. ..	6-05	21-04
Saskatchewan. 5-10	17-07
Manitoba . . . 14-40	26-46
per cent 7-93	32-56
11-86	32-96
17-17	41-35

The Address-Mr. Weir (Melfort)
It will be seen that the percentage of select bacon from Saskatchewan more than doubled in 1933 as compared with 1930, and that Manitoba increased its select bacon and bacons in the same years by 45 per cent. So the eastern farmer has no cause to worry about the quality of hogs that are produced in western Canada. Farmers are taking hold of this hog production in a very serious way and are giving every attention to producing the right quality.
One thing I omitted t'o mention in connection with wheat. At the country elevator we have taken from the farmer's load of wheat a sample which is put into an envelope on which the farmer writes his own name and the kind of wheat that he thinks he has grown. Our officials have then planted it on experimental farms and other plots of ground that have been available to us, and on a certain field day at which experimental farm officials are 'present these farmers gather at these plots and see, in comparison with others, the quality of wheat they are seeding and growing. It was found out that in somte localities that have produced the greatest quantities of wheat, thirty-five per cent of the wheat sown was not considered of a sufficiently pure strain to make it suitable for seed. Realizing the importance, especially at this time when theTe is such keen world competition in wheat, of having the highest quality wheat possible -it is no good to tell the farmer that his wheat is not of the right quality and that he must raise a better quality if he has not the money to purchase a higher grade of wheat-[DOT] we have been successful in arranging with the elevator companies in the west tlo "special bin" wheat from farms which it is shown by the growing tests produce a purer sample. They are to give bushel for bushel of that wheat for wheat that is not of the same degree of purity. Without costing this government a cent there is being put at the disposal of the farmers without cost a wheat of purer quality. This should improve our western wheat and give us a still greater advantage in the markets of the world.


John Vallance: Is that now in effect?


Robert Weir: It has been in effect since I came east in September.
I regret that I have not taken the time to go into these points more fully. I think hon. members will admit that the statement of the right hon. gentleman that this government has not done a single thing worthy of note or mention to help agriculture leaves them staggered as to the reason for his making that statement. They must realize that he must be completely out of touch with agriculture and knows nothing of the assistance given to that industry by this government. Either that, or he is in such a mood of desperation, as I stated at the outset, that he feels he must damn and condemn everything. He is reported as having stated at Winnipeg that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation's plans must be viewed with gloom. With the kindliest possible feelings I suggest that the tenor of his speech mudt have been due to a very gloomy environment. He should try to get about him a more cheerful atmosphere, and to assist him in that I undertake the pleasant task of recommending a subscription to the Prince Albert Herald. I am sure he will admit that this is a Liberal publication, but it paints a different picture from that which he gave the house. With the indulgence of the house I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared in this paper on January 4 of this year. I might mention that Prince Albert is situated in the 'centre of one of the finest agricultural districts in Canada and is the constituency represented by the right hon. gentleman. The editorial reads:
Government figures show that Canadian trade within the British Empire and with foreign countries is increasing. It is in much greater volume than was the ease of a year ago. This suggests that in the larger sphere of international business the tide is turning in a manner that will mean eventual disappearance of the more intense disabilities of unemployment and commercial stagnation that have been paramount during the last three years.
I shall not read it all, but the concluding sentence reads:
It is certain, however, that the general outlook has improved materially.
Another editorial dated January 18, 1934, just a week before the right hon. gentleman made his four-hour speech, is entitled Encouraging Factors and reads:
A year ago farmers were receiving twenty and a half cents a bushel for number two wheat delivered at the elevators here. Yesterday the price for the same grade locally was forty-four and a half cents. In drought areas, where no crop was harvested, this price betterment would not have the significance that it has in this nart of the province where a fair crop was harvested last fall.
The concluding paragraph reads:
The recent improvement in wheat prices, the prospect that this will continue, the fact that farmers in this area are able to take advantage of the price betterments, and lastly, the fact that bank clearings are displaying a buoyancy lacking a year ago, are encouraging signs.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata) :	Mr. Speaker, the amendment submitted to the house reads:
We respectfully regret that Your Excellency's present advisers have not taken such
The Address-Mr. Pouliot

steps as are necessary to deal adequately with unemployment, to reduce the burden imposed by the public debt, and to put the agricultural industry on a basis that will insure to the farmer a decent standard of living.
This amendment is proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and seconded by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner). If the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation had always had such sentiments, I would have agreed with them all along. I am in full accord with what they say in this amendment.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) has just completed an attack upon my revered and respected leader. There is a difference between us on this side of the house and hon. gentlemen on the other. We respect and revere our leader but we do not worship him. He is not a superman; he is human, and that is why we like him. Being a human being, he may make mistakes at times. But the electors of Mackenzie, to whom the Minister of Agriculture spoke several times, said that my leader was right when they elected his candidate by a substantial majority. I am sorry to see the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) leaving the chamber, as I shall have something to say about him later on. Tell a page to tell him that I intend to speak about him. The electorate of this country have decided that my leader is worthy of the confidence of the people. The electors of Mackenzie did not believe what was said by the Minister of Agriculture but they endorsed fully the stand taken by the opposition. The same thing happened in Restigouche-Madawaska. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) spoke there. AVe spoke also and I am glad that the electors in that constituency believed what was said by the members of the opposition, led by our right hon. leader. They believed in them.


Mr. SMITH (Victoria-Carleton):: No.


Mr. POULIOT:: The hon. member for Vic-toria-Carleton (Mr. Smith) should keep quiet, as Restigouche-Madawaska is next to his constituency. He should take a good look at the ceiling of the chamber for he will never see it again after the next elections. The same thing happened in Yamaska. The Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) went there but the people did not believe in him. The electors of Restigouche-Madawaska did not believe what was said by my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre). The Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) was there also but the government has since shipped him to Cairo. The hon. member for Quebec East [Mr. Poulicft.l
(Mr. Lapointe) spoke in that constituency, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) was there also; we were all glad to give our support to the hon. member who was elected in that constituency. He is an asset to this house, as is the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. MacMillan). Their election shows the popular confidence in the opposition. Our stand in the west is the same as our stand in the east; we tell the truth to the people.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member should behave when I refer to the judgment passed upon the policies of this government by a neighbouring constituency. The reason for the laughter of the hon. gentleman is his gross ignorance. He knows nothing and that is why he laughs.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Oh, oh.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has no right to use such language when referring to another member. He should not allege ignorance on the part of an hon. member, and I ask him to withdraw his remarks.


Jean-François Pouliot: For the words "gross
ignorance " I will substitute the words " encyclopaedia of general knowledge."
It seems to be forgotten by this government that the trade between Great Britain and the dominions is only nine per cent of the world trade, and when this government, or the Prime Minister alone, raised the tariff at the first special session in 1930, a wall was erected around this country-a wall which has proved a great obstacle to trade. From that time matters got increasingly worse until finally the right hon. gentleman realized that countries are like individuals, that no country is self-sufficient. Then he called the Ottawa conference. It is a mistake, sir, to take an isolated-


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: If there is a doctor in the house I would ask him to assist the member for Victoria-Carleton; he is groaning. Let us take an isolated item like a case of canned salmon or lobster, for instance. Suppose a merchant has not sold anything for weeks, and has no revenue coming in; the moment he sells a case of canned salmon or lobster, or for that matter anything else, if it is only a dollar, he says he has a favourable balance of trade. We should not take all the items separately; rather, we should take them as a

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
whole. Let us take the items that relate to the basic products and basic industries, from the standpoint of exports and imports, and from the standpoint of home consumption. Canada, so far as trade is concerned, can be compared to a departmental store, with two thousand departments, in which the Prime Minister is floorwalker from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Now, in order to ascertain whether the business of a store is good we have to take the purchases and sales in each department and then add them all together. Then we look at the general result.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will not do that for the two thousand departments of the store of which the Prime Minister is floorwalker-he suffers from travelitis-but I will take one by one the items which the right hon. gentleman disclosed in summaries in his famous speech on October 12, 1932.
Before I go on to that however perhaps I might say one word in reply to the argument put forward by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir, Melfort). He said that our markets were closed before the Liberal party left office, and that his party found closed markets when they assumed power. Well, I will make my comparison between the year 1930, during half of which the Liberal party was in office, the Conservative party being in office the rest of the time, and 1933. And here let me quote once more the opinion of a gentleman who is no child in the Conservative party-the right hon. the leader of the Senate. On April 8, 1926, that right hon. gentleman made the following statement, as reported in Hansard of that year, page 2253:
Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw): You contend that if the tariff is taken off the prices immediately rise?
Mr. Meighen: We contend it and we know it, because we see the facts.
This was wihat a former leader of the Conservative party said in the House of Commons in 1926, and he had the support of other gentlemen. I might mention the present Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion):
Mr. Manion: ... If you take off the tariff you raise the prices of goods.
The tariff was raised unduly by the Prime Minister and his government, regardless of the question of prices. Mr. Meighen himself, and ithe Minister of Railways-he was not a minister then, and probably could speak more freely-said that if you take off the tariff you raise the prices of goods. The reverse is
also true: If you increase the tariff you lower the prices of goods.
Now let us consider textiles, comparing exports in 1933 with those of 1930. In 1933 more manufactured cotton to the extent of $275,000, was exported. There was an increase of $1,280,000 in the export of raw wool and there was a total loss of $345,952 in the export of manufactured woollens. There was a loss of $622 in the export of raw flax and hemp, and a total loss of $9,920 in the export of manufactured flax and hemp, while there was a net increase of $1,199,313. The Minister of Agriculture spoke about wool. W hat was the external trade in woollen yarns? In 1930 it was $6,916,000, and in 1932, $6,800,000, or a decrease of $116,000. There was a decrease in the export of woollen yarns, the only increase being in the export of woollen cloth, but it did not help the farmer directly. In 1930 the figure of production was $10,313,788, and in 1932 it was $9,090,819, or a loss of $1,222,969 in 1932. Then let us take some other commodities:
Tobacco
1933 exports compared with 1930
Total increase, $2,413,375.
Increase in home consumption in 1932-33 over 1930-31, 2,217,477 pounds.
Total value of tobacco production
1930	 $25,812,079
1932	 24,170,907
Decrease	 $ 1,641,172
Quantity of production
Pounds
1930	 24,306,703
1932	 23,859,504
Decrease	 447,199


Mr. GOTT:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Jean-François Pouliot: After I am through.


Eccles James Gott: I merely want to ask-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. member who
has the floor does not choose to allow the question, it may not be asked.


Jean-François Pouliot: Canned Pears
1933 exports compared with 1930
Increase, $243,409.
Production
Cases
1930	 299,800
1932	 378,341
Increase	 78,541
The Address-Mr. Pouliot

public assistance, and I would ask you to give me a certificate to the chief of police in order that I may be permitted to beg in the city." Representatives of all the people of the world were united in the great ciity of Regina, praising the work of the Canadian farmers, while one of them came to ask for a certificate to the chief of police in order that he might be permitted to beg in the city of Riviere du Loup.
Sir, my only word is this: The private members of this bouse are in close touch with the people. We meet the people; we see them. I know hon. gentlemen opposite are in the same position; they meet their electors and learn their troubles. I regret, however, that most of the members of the government meet no people except those seeking jobs, who are afraid to tell the truth for fear they will not get their jobs. They praise the government; they say everything is fine, and this is why members of the government have no real information as to the trouble that exists, not only among the farmers but among the miners and other classes. This is why I ask my hon. friends who are here-the Solicitor General, the Minister of Finance and any other ministers who are biding behind the curtain-to tell the Prime Minister that it is time for him to realize that it is foolish to listen to the false praise that is showered upon him. He must be intelligent enough to understand that truth never comes from the mouths of flatterers. I will answer him by a word from the bible, that the wounds of those we love are much better than the kisses of those who hate us.


Mr. J. A. BARRETTE (Berthier-Maski-nonge) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, after
listening to the speech of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) I really wonder whether all his speeches are intended to enlighten the people or the house. I rather think he is the organizer of a certain group who wish to obstruct legislation.


Mr. CASGRAIN (Translation):: We do not obstruct legislation, we simply avail ourselves of our rights.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Among
the speeches to which I listened with much interest, I may specially mention that of the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix). The latter endeavoured to draw up the country's balance-sheet; however, he forgot to mention our assets in relation to our liabilities; I think he should have displayed the same interest as if it had been his own budget. He is a highly thought of man, who seems to have a certain grasp of figures and when he pre-

pares his own balance-sheet, I feel sure that he does not forget to include his assets. The hon. member contends that our liabilities amount to $6,751,596,000 which represent $651.33 per capita-men, women and children. He compares this indebtedness with that of the United States which he states amounts to $42,223,249,000, representing $335.10 per capita. When he quoted these figures, I asked him what were the assets of our country, the hon. member did not answ'er. I wish to point out to him that Canada's total assets amount to more than $30,000,000,000, which represent $3,000 per capita-men, women and children. If you deduct the amount of the indebtedness $651 per capita,, you find that the individual wealth amounts to $2,349 per capita.
In the United States the total debt amounts to $42,223,249,000 or $335.10 per capita; their total assets to $247,000,000,000 representing an amount of $1,981, per capita. If one deducts from this amount the $335, one arrives-at an individual asset of $1,646. A citizen of the United States, therefore is worth $1,646-while in Canada,, $2,349. There is no reason,, therefore to feel despondent.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: If you tell this to the farmers, they will not take your word for it.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri) (Translation):: Nevertheless, they -took his word in the past.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: In 1867, the value of the national wealth was not more than $4,000,000,000, and we have increased it to $30,000,000,000, in 1932.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: That is a huge sum?


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Our national revenue which was less than $500,000,000, increased to $5,000,000,000, yearly. I think that these figures are very interesting. Have hon. gentlemen any knowledge what was the-amount of deposits in our banks, a century ago?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Fifty cents.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Not a cent. Have you any knowledge what the deposits in our banks amount to, at present?


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri) :: (Translation) $3,000,000.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: $2,000,-
000,000; and three quarters of the bonds of our national liabilities are held by Canadians.

The Address-Mr. Barrette


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Many are held in New York!


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order!


Joseph Arthur Barrette: It gave me much pleasure to hear the right hon. Prime Minister state that public works would be [DOT]carried out to relieve the unemployment. Among the foremost of these undertakings, I would place those in connection with the University of Montreal. Rather than adopt the dole system, without ever having any beneficial results, I wonder if it would not be possible to finish the construction of the University of Montreal and thus find work for the unemployed.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: And remove it to Berthier?


Joseph Arthur Barrette: I shall have an opportunity to refer to this matter in the near future.
The President of the United States, Mr. (Roosevelt, has just recommended to Congress the expenditure of $225,000,000 to implement the St. Lawrence Waterway agreement and this money will be mostly expended in Canada.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Are you in favour of such a project?


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Does the Washington government, in making such a considerable outlay expect immediate returns? No. In asking such a large amount, Mr. Roosevelt has in mind the future welfare of his country.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: And swallowing Canada.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Hon. members
should not be interjecting remarks in this way. If they do not agree with the hon. member who is speaking they will have an opportunity to speak for themselves. If they are going to remain in this chamber they must comply with the rules.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: The St Lawrence waterway will entail an expenditure of $225,000,000, to the United States, $75,000,000 of which will be expended in Canada; yet, this enormous amount to a great extent expended in a foreign land, will in no way directly increase the revenues of the United States. The President, however, states that the United States people will benefit indirectly to the extent perhaps of $70,000,000 yearly.
Among the speeches to which I listened in the house, I greatly appreciate that of the
hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). He stated the back-to-thedand movement must be encouraged so as to relieve unemployment. I look upon the scheme as an excellent one, providing that some discretion is shown in choosing workmen in cities. We must, first,, begin by keeping on the land those who are already there, and make life so attractive that they will have no desire to live in cities.
Such a scheme has been, I think, advocated in Montreal and in all large centres by both Liberals and Conservatives, and no doubt will have beneficial results, if we can agree in carrying it out while at the same time safeguarding the interests of the nation. I also listened to the speech of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) who is a legal light, a highly gifted gentleman; however does not his speech somewhat breathe pessimism? That we should immediately appeal to the people to find out what they think of our administration! I trust that before long we shall have the privilege of being judged by them. Personally, I am ready to go immediately before the people. I trust the shock will not be too severe to our friends. We shall fully explain our situation, and I have no doubt that our constituents will realize that we have performed our duty and fulfilled all the pledges given to them in 1930.
We are criticized in the house, but tour the country and you will come across Liberals, manufacturers, traders, financiers and prominent bankers who approve of the attitude and administration of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) who presides over the destinies of this country.
If the opposition is deeply interested in putting an end to the crisis and helping out the country, why so much obstruction, why criticize and prevent us from adopting the address? I admire the gifted member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). He is an excellent lawyer, a good sport, but he likes publicity. That is why he often speaks in the house. I think he has delivered three speeches on the address. What will come of it? His constituents will decide the question at the next election; they may, perhaps, say to him: You have cost the country too much through your obstructive methods! Will he have enhanced himself in the eyes of his constituents, his country? I do not think so.
Mr. Speaker, I only intended to make a few brief remarks in order to establish the facts in connection with the figures quoted by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix). I
The Address-Division

wanted especially to point out that he had neglected informing the house as to the assets of this country.
I consider that with our Prime Minister at the helm of the country's affairs, there is reason to hope for better days, because he has succeeded in weathering the crisis and before long we shall witness a prosperity without parallel in this country.


Mr. SEGUIN (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. Postmaster-General (Mr.Sauve). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
Mr.	VERVILiLE	(Translation):	I	was
paired with the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
Mr.	RAYMOND	(Translation):	I	was
paired with the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Bell). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
Mr.	FONTAINE	(Translation):	I	was
paired with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Laurin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. LAFLECHE (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Girouard). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Vincent Dupuis: I was paired
with the hon. member for Northumberland (N.B ) (Mr. McDade). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BRADETTE (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Nicholson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
Mr. DONNELLY':	I was paired with the
hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria (Mr. Johnstone). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MULLINS:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
Mr. HANBURY I was paired with the hon. member for West Kootenay (Mr. Esling). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. IRVINE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Inverness (Mr. MaoDougall). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: I
was paired with the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. FACTOR:: I was paired with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
(Owing to the impossibility of recording several statements of pairs simultaneously announced, the list of stated pairs is incomplete).
Main motion (Mr. Gobeil) agreed to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That the address be engrossed and transmitted to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of the house as are of the honourable the Privy Council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, February 16, 1934