1935-04-09

[Stage Direction]
First report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Chaplin.
2546	COMMONS
Elections Act-Alternative Vote
Second report of the select standing committee on government railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.-Mr. Geary.

Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: I propose to proceed with the resolution standing in my name in yesterday's votes and proceedings. I realize that it can only be done with the unanimous consent of the house.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: No objection.
Mr. WEIR (MeLfort) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the rehabilitation of drought areas in the provinces of Manitoba. Saskatchewan and Alberta, and for the appropriation for the said purposes of such funds as may be necessary to carry into effect the proposed legislation.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. A. BEYNON (Moose Jaw) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 52 to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1934. (Alternative vote.).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. BEYNON:: Mr. Speaker, the object of this bill is to introduce the alternative vote so far as the province of Saskatchewan, is concerned. It is limited to that province for this reason: There is a large body of public opinion in all parts of Canada in favour of some such system of voting, and there is also considerable opposition to it in some sections of Canada. It was thought advisable to introduce the system with reference to Saskatchewan only as an experiment, in order that the people-	[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Why divide the country like that?


William Addison Beynon: I will explain that in a moment. Several attempts have been made to introduce such a system of voting for the whole of Canada, but they have always failed largely, I think, because the people are not

familiar with it and do not realize its advantages. It was thought that by experimenting with one province the people would see how it works ou-t, and perhaps they might view it in a different light.
The object of this method of voting is this. It very often happens under the present system that where one candidate is to be elected more than two candidates run, and the candidate elected receives a minority of the votes in the riding. One of the. main reasons for applying it to Saskatchewan, so far as I am concerned, is that I am familiar with the situation in that province. The other reason is that hon. gentlemen opposite have told us, and I have no doubt they were sincere, that in the province of Saskatchewan there is a great preponderance of public opinion in favour of the Liberal party.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Addison Beynon: The only danger they face there is that with third parties intervening their vote may be split up, and the Conservative might be elected by a minority vote.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Addison Beynon: While we like to come to Ottawa, as supporters of the government we do not like to come representing a minority of our riding. Of -course if hon. gentlemen opposite are merely boasting; if they want to come down here by a minority vote, that is a horse of a different colour, -but if they have behind them that preponderance of public opinion which we are -told they have, this system of voting will be all to their advantage because it will enable the majority to express their will without allowing some third party to come in and split that majority so that some candidate, receiving only a minority of the votes, may find himself elected.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division, and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I understood that to-day the house was to receive the report of the royal commission on price spreads and mass buying. Up to the present time the report has not been presented to the house, but what appears to be a very complete statement of the recommendations contained in the report appeared yesterday in

Price Spreads Commission
the afternoon papers in some parts of Canada and is in most of the morning papers of today. I have a copy of one paper under my hand in which five or six columns are devoted to the final report of the commission. I am not complaining with respect to the attitude of the press; it is the business of the press to get ail the information it can, but after what has been said in this house with respect to preserving the privileges of this parliament, not only on this side but by hon. gentlemen opposite as well, it certainly would appear that the giving out of what is published here is, on the part of someone, in the nature of an act of contempt alike of parliament and of the government. I think the government had better appoint a commission to inquire into what member of this commission, if any, or what person connected with it is responsible for giving this information to the press before either the government or parliament have received it.
I should like to suggest also that when the government are considering the legislation that is to be based upon the recommendations of this commission, with respect to unfair practices and unethical proceedings, it might consider whether it is not possible to enact some legislation which will prevent unfair practices and unethical proceedings on the part of chairmen of committees of this House of Commons when dealing with price spreads and mass-buying, and on the part of some member or members of royal commissions when they are dealing with the same subjects. This is a matter that should not be allowed to pass lightly; it is a matter that concerns the government and all hon. members of this house. I submit that parliamentary government can only be carried on if we observe the rules of parliament, and judicial and quasi-judicial bodies can only be upheld if judicial procedure is followed. The rules and practices both of parliament and judicial bodies have been violated by someone who has had a pretty intimate association with the committee and also with the commission. I hope the government will take up this matter seriously, in order to preserve the privileges of this house and the rights of all parties with respect to matters of this kind.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The report of the royal commission has not yet been received by the government.


Some MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
an absolute fact.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: That
makes it worse.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am only dealing with one point at the moment. I am informed by the chairman of the commission that the report was signed this morning and is to be presented to me this afternoon. With respect to the matters to which the right hon. gentleman has alluded, I find myself more or less in agreement with him, but the government is in no sense responsible. We will give consideration to the statements he has made.



DISTURBANCE AT PROJECT NO. 42

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Minister of National Defence):: Yesterday I was asked
by the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Campbell) whether I had information as to a disturbance last week at project No. 42, and as to considerable amounts of goods being missing.
There has been no disturbance at project No. 42 since March 8, 1935, when four agitators endeavoured to cause dissatisfaction and uis-content in the mess room. The complaints were fully investigated at the time and found to be unfounded, and the agitators were discharged. The particular complaint with regard to the food was in respect to the fish. This was inspected before and after cooking and found to be of good quality. The same diet was served in the other mess rooms and there were no complaints.
With regard to the hon. member's statement that goods were missing, he may be referring to a loss of gasoline which occurred on April 4, 1935. It appears that one Morey, on the strength of the project, gave away five gallons to the driver of a visiting car, and that he then left the project without permission and has not since been located. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police are investigating the matter.



FREIGHT RATES REVISION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the acting Prime Minister. During one of the addresses of the Prime Minister some intimation was given that certain instructions would be issued to the board of railway commissioners instructing them to undertake a revision of the freight rates structure. Is it the intention of the government this year to issue such instructions, and if so will the present freight rates structure in the province

Long Adjournment-Mr. Boulanger
of British Columbia be included in any order for revision, particularly the rates on grain and grain products used in that province?


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, probably this is a question which should be answered by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion). I suggest the hon. member place his question on the order paper.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CAMPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Reid: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Stirling) regarding the investigation to take place by way of commission into the relief camps in the province of British Columbia. Is it the intention of the minister to lay that report upon the table soon after he receives it?


An hon. MEMBER:: Wait and see.


Grote Stirling: Mr. Speaker, I would imagine that in the ordinary course of events such report would be laid on the table of the house.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, April 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Rhodes for committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lapointe.
Mr. OSCAR L. BOULANGER (Belle-chasse):	Mr. Speaker, I do not intend
unnecessarily to prolong the observations I began last evening. May I state briefly that I oppose the long adjournment because I do not want the business of the country to be delayed. On this occasion I do not wish to be accused of delaying the business of the house by making a long speech.
Last night I was discussing one of the reasons given by the government in favour of a long adjournment, namely, the considerable time required for the preparation of legislation to implement the recommendations of the royal commission on price spreads and mass buying. I said last night, and now repeat, that if the government does not know the recommendations of the commission they are the only ones who have not that information, because for days, weeks, and 
months the newspapers throughout the country have published columns concerning those recommendations.
The report of the commission was signed at eleven o'clock this morning and should be presented to the Minister of Trade and Commerce to-day. Yet, last evening's newspapers and again the newspapers on the streets this morning contained columns about the recommendations of the commission, and quoted verbatim whole sections of the report. Therefore the government surely will not profess ignorance of at least a general idea of the report. Now the report has been signed and will be presented. The legislation suggested by the commission is expressed in great detail in the report, and full and complete indications are given of the type of legislation the commission desires. Therefore very little time should be necessary for the government to draft bills arising out of the recommendations. As the first member of the commission to speak, after the presentation of the report, it is only fitting that there should be a tribute of appreciation to the secretary of the commission, Mr. L. B. Pearson, of the Department of External Affairs, who was loaned to us. We cannot be too grateful for the assistance and help received from him. What I say about Mr. Pearson I would say, too, about his assistants, Mr. W. J. Cooper and Professor C. A. Curtis, and the other competent and expert economists who have assisted us throughout the investigation.
Only a few moments ago I listened to the observations of the right hon. leader of the opposition regarding the leakage of the report of the commission. It is not necessary for me to state that this unfortunate leakage has not been due to any action of any Liberal member of the commission.
Mr. DURANLEAU:: How do you know?


Mr. BOULANGER:: What I have said about Mr. Pearson and his assistants, and their help in preparing the report prompts me to bring to the attention of the house the advisability of having the Canadian universities represented in parliament. This matter has been discussed in the French press and more especially in that excellent Montreal paper l'Ordre. The universities are represented in the imperial parliament, the mother of parliaments, and I believe it would be advisable to have our universities represented in the Canadian house in order that we may have the advantage of the points of view, outlook and opinions of university men. I hope my suggestion will be studied by the government during the long adjournment,

Long Adjournment-Mr. Boulanger
because I have no doubt that despite our protestations the government will carry its point and that we will have a long adjournment. The opposition is merely stating its position; we are placing on record our points ol view, knowing all the while that although the government has not a majority throughout the country they have a majority in this Chamber and for that reason can carry their point.


Alfred Duranleau: You will be surprised at the next election.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: If I see the Minister of Marine after the next election I shall recall what he has said.


Alfred Duranleau: You will be very
much surprised in the province of Quebec at least.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I was saying last night that reasons of convenience should not be considered or advanced in support of the motion for the adjournment of the house. We know very well that the reason for a long adjournment is the convenience of the Conservative party. They are demoralized and disorganized. They are not ready to render their account to the people. They are not ready to face the electors, and therefore they want to drag this session on and delay the appeal to the people just as long as they possibly can.


Alfred Duranleau: What about your
organization in Quebec?


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: This government is
waiting for something to turn up, for some calamity or catastrophe or some sensational event which will give them a reason for establishing a dictatorship in Canada and do away with the necessity of facing the electors. They did that in 1916, when they invoked the war as a reason for prolonging for one year the life of that parliament. I suppose they are expecting another war to break out in Europe to furnish them with a reason for not having an election this year. But if there is no war, we may be sure that they will delay till the last second of the last minute of the last hour of the last day before they dare render an account of their stewardship to the people.
If they want a reason for not going to the people, they might adopt the reason advanced by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) the other day. He advanced reasonable and eternal reasons for never having any more elections in Canada, reasonable as "le cochon raisonnable" and eternal as "la vache eternelle," of our old donation
deeds of the province of Quebec. He argued that we could not have an election immediately because some young people have become of age since the lists were prepared and that it was only fit and proper that their names should be inscribed on the electoral lists during the revision which was started on the first of this month. Well, if that is a reason, it is a perpetual and eternal reason because young people will be coming of age every day in every year for years and centuries to come in Canada, and if that is to be adopted as a reason for delaying the election which the people are demanding, there is no reason for ever having an election in Canada.
During the last summer I frequented the homes of the farmers whom I have the honour to represent in this house. I have lived with them, I have talked with them, and during the fall I visited those nice Liberal parishes which the government has annexed to the county of Bellechasse.


Mr. OOTNAM:: They must have fed you pretty well.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: For which I am
thankful.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Male or female?
Mr. GiOTT:	Are you afraid of the young
electors?


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I am not as afraid
of them as my good friend from Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel) should be. I think therefore, Mr. Speaker, I can safely speak in the name of the farmers of at least that section of the country which I represent. I know what they are saying; I know what they are thinking. They are saying this: For heaven's sake let us have the election immediately. They are demanding an election. They want to express their opinion of the way they have been governed for the last five years. They want a change. There is nothing they want so much as a change.


Alfred Duranleau: Not in the province
of Quebec.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: In the province of
Quebec more than anywhere else, and the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) will find that out to his sorrow.


Alfred Duranleau: It is a change in the Liberal party they want.


Mr. DUFF:: What about the Shipping
Act?


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: The farmers axe
anxious to settle their accounts with this government, which has done nothing for them in the last five years in spite of the prolific
2550	COMMONS
Long Adjournment-Mr. Boulanger
promises which the government made to the electors in 1930. Although the present Prime Minister of Canada said in the election of 1930, "Farmers of Canada, we will make tariffs fight for you," the tariffs have been used in the last five years, not to fight for the farmers, but to fight against them. Immediately after the election, at the special session of 1930, the tariffs were raised against the farmers and on account of that raise in the tariffs the farmers had to pay more for their farm implements, more for their cream separators, more for their gasoline motors and for many other articles which they have to buy. They had to pay more for everything they had to buy, and at the same time they received less for their butter and for all the products they had to sell.
But that was not sufficient. At the general session of 1932 the tariffs were raised again against the farmers. Then we had the imperial conference in 1932, and following that, occasion was taken again to raise the tariffs against the farmers and to restrict the markets and the outlets for the produce of the farm. Therefore I am not surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers are anxious to meet this government and to settle accounts with them. The farmers of Canada want an election right now, even though some few young people may not have their names on the list.
It would not be such a bad thing for the farmers if there was not a revision of the lists at all. This revision is going to cost quite a pile of money, too much money. The printing of the lists themselves has cost a lot of money, and I understand that the printing and the revision of the lists is going to cost over a million dollars, an expense that is absolutely unnecessary. The old system was a good one, and there was no demand for a change. It was working to perfection, and there was no complaint against it. Under the old system the lists were made on the eve of an election by the electoral officer and the returning officers all over Canada, and it did not cost much money. One of the advantages of that system was that if an elector's name had been omitted from the list he could vote if qualified on being identified at the poll by someone who knew him. But under the present system a lot of unnecessary officials have been appointed and a lot of money has been spent unnecessarily, and there is the danger of names being misspelled or misinscribed on the list, and danger also of names being omitted altogether, and that has occurred in every county of the province of Quebec. Many names have been misspelled and wrongly inscribed on the lists. The farmers
fMr. Boulanger.l
are tired of seeing their money spent unnecessarily and foolishly by this government. The public debt of Canada has been increased by some $700,000,000 or $800,000,000 during the five years of this administration, and the interest on the public debt takes more than half of the revenues of Canada. The people have been taxed almost beyond their capacity to pay taxation, and the farmers of Canada do not want to pay any further taxation. They want no more public money spent uselessly. They do not want to see the taxes increased, and these are the reasons why they want a change of government.
The prices of the goods which the farmer has to buy have been increased not only through manipulation of tariffs but by an increase in taxation also. The farmers must pay a sales tax of six per cent on everything they buy. There are very few of us who have to pay income tax, but those who do have found this tax increased. The duties on imported goods have been increased and to cap everything, the farmers have been saddled with an additional tax on sugar. This tax was cut in half last year but it has been continued this year by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes).
I know the minds of the farmers better than the minds of any other class, but I am quite sure that all classes in Canada are anxious for an immediate election. Knowing the sentiment of the people as I do, I know they are against a long adjournment. I am against a long adjournment because I do not want to see the business of the country delayed and I want the people to be given a chance of expressing their opinion on the maladministration of this government.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) :: Mr. Speaker, my first word will
be one of regret at the illness of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). As a friend of many years' standing I sincerely regret his serious illness and hope that he will soon be restored to health. I trust he will be in a position to lead the Conservative party during the next elections. It is unfortunate for the Conservative party that the Prime Minister has been forced to absent himself from the house because the members of this party have shown how impotent they are to deal with public questions. I say that in all sincerity.


Leslie Gordon Bell: We are all good.


Charles A. Stewart: There is
nothing personal in that. I think I should be given credit for always having the friendliest feelings towards the government. I have always wished them well ever since they

Long Adjournment-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
took office but unfortunately they will not live up to the standards and ethics of good government. They have delegated to themselves authority in every direction. This is being demonstrated to-day as it has been demonstrated in the past. One of the members of the Conservative party has taken upon himself the responsibility of publishing a report which belongs strictly to the House of Commons and no where else. When I say hon. members are impotent, I have good reasons for my statement.


Leslie Gordon Bell: There is no proof he did that.


Charles A. Stewart: We were
told by a responsible minister of the government that they knew nothing about it and were helpless to redress what is a clear insult to the House of Commons.


Mr. QUINN:: All the members of the
commission do not sit over here.


Leslie Gordon Bell: There is no proof
any member did that.


Charles A. Stewart: I wish I was as credulous as my hon. friend.


Leslie Gordon Bell: That is just newspaper talk.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member should
be permitted to finish his remarks without inr-terruption.


Charles A. Stewart: It does not disturb me in the slightest. I have a few things to say and I am going to say them whether or not I am interrupted. I do not intend to rehash ancient history but I think the government should be held responsible for some of the promises which have been made during the five years they have been in office. This government has made a most remarkable right about face. It told the electorate it believed in sound money and would blast its way into the markets of the world irrespective of obstacles.


Alfred Duranleau: Hear, hear.


Charles A. Stewart: The hon.
gentleman says, "Hear, hear." I suppose he will subscribe to a government which takes a right about face when it discovers its mistake in the light of events which have transpired in recent days. The policies of sound money and the blasting into the markets of the world have been relegated to be brought up again at some future date when another government of Tory calibre may be in office. We have had
the leader of the government making a statement that he was amazed at the lack of opposition to the government program of social reform. Why should there be opposition when ninety per cent of this legislation has been a Liberal policy for years? Why should we oppose that which we have been advocating for a number of years? This government has had the autocratic habit of enforcing their will not only upon parliament but upon the people and upon the provincial governments. Despite all that has been said in this house by hon. members who are in the legal profession,
I am still of the opinion that this legislation is ultra vires of the dominion parliament.
I have been permitted to be in public life for some considerable time and I have some respect for the constitution of this country. I have respect also for the rights and privileges of the provincial governments. We hesitated to put similar legislation into effect because we believed it would have to be done with the consent and cooperation of the provincial governments. When we are told that it is not necessary to do anything of the kind, I cannot believe it. If I wanted further proof of this statement I could find it in what the government say. They say that they do not intend to put this legislation into effect until an appeal has been made to the electorate. What better proof can we find of their fear as to their ability to enforce this legislation. The Prime Minister stated that he did not intend to put this legislation into effect until boards had been set up. I have been told by friends of the government in my own province that it was the intention of the government to appeal to the electorate some time before the middle of May.
Not only has this government misled the members of the House of Commons but it has misled the people of the country. We have not been told in so many words but I think we could assume that the legislation which they hoped would have such beneficial results politically has proved to be a dud and it has not been considered worth while to make an appeal to the electorate. Therefore, they must have six weeks in which to sit around and think up some new scheme which they hope will interest the electors.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Will the hon.
member permit a question?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Leslie Gordon Bell: All I want to ask the hon. gentleman is-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Leslie Gordon Bell: If the hon. member will be good enough to answer me-
2552	COMMONS
Long Adjournment-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Let us hear the question.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I am not trying to be controversial-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Shut up, you fools.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must ask the hon. member to withdraw the remark he has made to the opposition members. He has used a word which is not parliamentary and I must ask him to withdraw it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Of course I have to withdraw it, no matter what they look like. I did want to ask the hon. gentleman a question in all sincerity and I thought he would answer it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Leslie Gordon Bell: All I want to know is the date on which the statement attributed to the Prime Minister was made.


Charles A. Stewart: The statement with respect to legislation? I have not got it before me, but I have a clear recollection and I will get the statement and hand it to the hon. gentleman.


Leslie Gordon Bell: That is all I want to know.


Charles A. Stewart: I think it is imperative that this session should be ended; I do not think it is at all necessary to have this delay. I do not think that even the illness of the Prime Minister warrants delay at this late stage in the life of this parliament. We have seen almost every promise made by this government broken, and we have seen the futility of the legislation they have brought down. That legislation has not in any single instance effected a cure or brought about any relief in the situation that now exists. Take the statement which has been made by my hon. friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger). We were told that by an increase in tariffs unemployment would be ended in Canada; the electors of the country were given that assurance. The Liberal opposition in the House of Commons have remained quiescent; they have given this government every chance in the world, they have subscribed to any -particular legislation that seemed to be in the interests of the people, though the opposition have warned the government of course on all occasions that the legislation would be without effect. And has not our word been amply proven? What is the state of employment to-day? Has there been any relief to the unemployment situation 
in the last three or four years? For two or three years we have been hearing that business was on the upgrade, prosperity being just around the corner, but statements of that kind are no longer being made by members of the government. It has -been conceded not only by business men but -by economists that the root of all evil of the trouble lies in the fa-ct that this government have placed barriers against trade and restricted trade on every occasion; hence the position in which we find ourselves to-day. Year after year we have had deficits and additional taxation, and year after year individuals engaged in the basic industries of the country, with the exception of gold mining and the production of nickel, have found themselves in the unfortunate position of being less able to pay their taxes than in previous years. What is the situation today? Unless there is a- right about face in Canada, we shall not be able to pay the taxes imposed on us. Worse than that, the effect of this legislation has spread to the provinces, for the provincial governments are facing difficulties right and left. Take the financial statement of any of the provinces; does it make pleasant reading? Have we a feeling that we are making progress, or do we not rather feel that we are going backward? Every one of the provinces has to announce deficit after deficit with an addition to its debt. Need I tell you. Mr. Speaker, that t-here can be only one end to this sort of thing? In a private business it does not matter who finds himself in this unfortunate position, he must sooner or later succumb and have the sheriff take control.
The government of the day have made much of the fact that they have preserved the credit of Canada and have been able to pay their way. Well, they have been able to pay their way by further borrowing; that is the only way. Then they -take much credit for the fact that they have had favourable balances of trade. How are favourable balances of trade secured? When they took office the trade of the country was nearly two and a quarter billions, and what is it to-day? It has gradually decreased until it averages a little over one billion, and by the reduction in trade, by restriction of imports into the country and partly by the empire agreements, regarding which I shall have a word or two to say, they have been able to show a favourable balance of trade. But they have done so at the expense of the people of Canada; there is a heavier burden of taxation on the people's shoulder's, added to every session of parliament, and that condition would continue -were hon. gentlemen permitted to hold another session.

______Long Adjournment-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
My hon. friends do not seem to realize that there must be, as I say, a right about face in the policy of the government before the people can secure any relief. That does not seem to occur to them. No; we have nothing but procrastination in dealing with these matters. My hon. friends have imbibed the spirit of nationalism from other countries despite the fact other countries are in as difficult a situation. They follow these other countries; there is no originality about their proposals for relief. All we are told is .that their social legislation will meet the difficulties of the situation. Will anyone tell me how unemployment insurance will benefit the situation? I have not yet discovered anyone who wants it as we have it under the present act. How will the shortening of hours of labour and the minimum wage improve matters? An amusing thing gleaned from the report this afternoon, which one reporter seems to have got hold of in some way, is the statement that they are not recommending a forty-eight hour week but one of forty-four hours. Again, the government of the day find themselves in the unfortunate position of having to make changes in that respect. I suppose this is the reason: They want to have some relief, some time to get their second wind, to see whether they cannot think up some new idea that will catch the popular fancy.
I was greatly amused yesterday listening to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) when he made a statement as to when the election would be. He said dispassionately to this house that they would have an election when they thought they could win. If we have to wait until this government think they can win, we may as well all go home and go to work and wait another five years.


Mr. GOTT:: There is not a safe Liberal
seat from the head of the lakes to the coast.


Charles A. Stewart: We should
have had an election last year. I believe that if the government had had the courage to face the electors last year they would have had a much better chance than they have to-day. They got some false courage after the Prime Minister's broadcasts, and for a time they were greatly encouraged. I was told by one who is in the councils of the mighty that at last they had struck something that tickled the popular fancy. But the real reason for their change of heart was the fact that one of their number became a malcontent, he was not satisfied to pursue the tenor of their way and went out on his own. I refer to the Hon.
Mr. Stevens. He broadcast his ideas throughout the country and scared the life out of the government, and they succumbed to fear.


Leslie Gordon Bell: He is not a malcontent; he is an honest man.


Charles A. Stewart: Hon. gentlemen opposite had a change of heart largely as a result of his propaganda.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: A change of heart over night.


Charles A. Stewart: They would change in a minute if they thought it would catch a vote. It is a question of staying in power at any cost, on any program. Look at our friends in the comer, they have done nothing but smile, largely in derision, since they came to this session, at the spectacle of hon. gentlemen across the floor who in large measure have stolen their clothes. They go to sleep once in a while and wake up and discover that some of their most attractive garments are gone. Not up-to-date foreooth; and indeed they have troubles of their own. In our province we have a new cult, that of Social Credit as enunciated by Mr. Douglas, and now improved upon materially by one named Eberhart. So my friends in the corner are doing their best to stem the tide, and between what Eberhart is doing and what this government has done to them they are in a somewhat difficult situation. They are watching their clothing; even their underwear is in danger, there is nothing safe to be left loose around while this government is in power, if they thought it would tickle popular fancy.
Now, Air. Speaker, I do not know what sort of program we shall be presented with after May 20, after the government have cogitated for another six weeks. I do not know whether that program will be heralded by a broadcast. I fancy it will not for I think the earlier broadcasts are recognized as having been a huge mistake; they were prematurely exploded before they reached the objective, and of course as with all duds the reaction was disastrous for the Tory party. They will probably have something which they hope will catch the popular fancy of people in the towns and cities as a result of this price spreads investigation.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Don't sneer at
Mr. Stevens, he is an honest man and everyone knows it.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not sneering, I consider Mr. Stevens a very shrewd politician. I did not know however that my
2554	COMMONS
Long Adjournment-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
hon. friend had espoused his cause. I do know that there is considerable dissension about the leadership. My hon. friend knows something about the various aspirants for leadership; if I have time I shall have a word or two to say about that. But there are not many men in Mr. Stevens' class and I have not a single word to say against him.


Mr. MALONEY:: What about Mr. King's
proposed broadcast?


Charles A. Stewart: I will let
the hon. member into a secret if he will have patience. He heard my remark that even the underwear of hon. members down in the corner is not safe, everything that seems to have any appeal is grabbed. It struck me while sitting here listening patiently to hon. gentlemen opposite defending their budget that they would mighty well like to get some inspiration as to a policy that would have some appeal and that might help to save their deposits at the next election.


Leslie Gordon Bell: What is your
policy, if you have any?


Charles A. Stewart: We shall tell you when the proper time comes. In the words of your leader when he was in opposition, "When we are called in we will prescribe." There is another reason why they want to delay the election. It has been seen in every by-election-and there are still some that should be held-with the single exception of that of the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Church); everywhere it has been hopeless defeat for the government. The waters do not look good at all, they look exceedingly chilly, and as the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) said, they evidently are going to delay until the last minute and hang on to power as long as they can. The result will be that in common with every other government that has ever tried a similar experiment they will get the results they so richly deserve.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Why complain
about it?


Charles A. Stewart: Hanging on to office will not help them, but will rather create an adverse sentiment. As far as we are concerned whether the election is in May, June, July, September or October, the results are inevitable.


Leslie Gordon Bell: But what is your policy?


Charles A. Stewart: I told my hon. friend that he will hear our policy at the proper time. And may I say to him and

his colleagues that their business is to convince the electors that they have one. We will attend to ours. So far any policy that my friends or any one of them have suggested has had no popular appeal whatever. I had hoped that at this session the budget would bring what a good many of us were informed was coming-true we are not supposed to be in the councils of the mighty

a reduction in the tariff on secondary commodities, which bears so heavily on the people on the land in particular through the cost of living. The tariffs on textiles put into effect by this government are a disgrace. They are not required for the protection of the textile industry, they never were. Moreover the promise was made that they would encourage the consumption of Canadian wool in the manufacture of woollen goods. But what do we discover? Over eighty per cent of woollen textiles made in Canada are made from Australian wool, and our own wool is at a lower price than it has been for a considerable time.
Then we were told that the empire trade agreements were going to cure the wheat situation, yet just lately we have it reported that there are 240,000,000 bushels in store. I am one who believes that the unprecedented low price of wheat, for which this government are not responsible, for which they or any other government could not be responsible, warranted assistance being granted to the wheat producers of western Canada. I say that for more than one reason; I say it for the reason that if you are going to grant to secondary industries the kind of protection that has been given by this government, then in all fairness something should be done for the primary industries. The government were warranted in granting the bonus of five cents a bushel, they were warranted in putting Mr. McFarland in control and purchasing wheat and keeping the price up, but they never were warranted in holding that wheat as an overhang on the markets of the world. Why did they not sell it? Why did they allow our competitors to take the British and other markets away from us? Why did they penalize the millers to' the extent to which they were bonusing wheat daily, and I say quite properly so? Why did they do that sort of thing? I say the stupidity of that action is going to cost the primary producers of Canada unending trouble, grief, worry and money before this matter is cleared up. I notice that Mr. McFarland states that he hopes to sell this wheat, and how does he hope to sell it? He hopes to sell it as a result

Long Adjournment-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
of the difficulties in the United States, and the fact that there is practically a famine in that country.
Mr. LO'UCKS: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Charles A. Stewart: No, I will
answer questions when I am through. I repeat that I have no quarrel with the action oif the government in bonusing the purchase of wheat; my quarrel is with the unbusinesslike methods they pursued in dealing with that problem. What has been the result of the enhanced price to the millers? As a result we have lost our market for flour in Great Britain. I have heard hon. gentlemen stand up in this house and state that our exports were much the same as in former days. Will you, Mr. Speaker, or will any hon. gentleman tell me what would have happened if in Canada we had had normal crops of 400,000,000, 450,000,000 or 500,000,000 bushels, and this same policy had been pursued? What position would we have been in to-day? The problem that must be solved by the government, no matter what government it may be, is how to regain the foreign markets for wheat and flour that we have lost through the actions of this government. It is not so easy to regain them, and here we have this overhang of 240,000,000 bushels that we have been told repeatedly, month after month and year after year was going to be cleaned out of the country. Then what about our cattle? The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) is not in his seat; as a matter of fact we have a very sparse attendance this afternoon, and from the evidence I see upstairs I presume they are busy on the election now. I see not hundreds of pounds but tons of literature going out from this building. I have no quarrel at all with that-


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Are you sending out any?


Charles A. Stewart: Certainly
we are, but in armfuls rather than bagfuls. We have not the facilities or the funds of n.y hon. friends.


Leslie Gordon Bell: What about
Beauharnois?


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
quarrelling with that; it was done in 1930, but I do say that instead of sleeping as many of them did while the budget speech was being delivered, and instead of paying so much attention to the sending out of literature which they hope will convince the electors that they should be returned to power, they should be devoting themselves to the real problems of the country. If their
literature is anything like the material I have seen, the more they send out the better for us. More power to them; send out lots of it, because it will not convince anybody. But may I say, Mr. Speaker, that with our cattle practically shut out of the British market and with the uncertainty of that market the cattle industry of Canada is practically demoralized. Had it not been for the fact that drought in the United States opened up a market for our western cattle, at reasonable prices, stark, utter ruin would have stared us in the face.
And then hon. gentlemen opposite talk about a reciprocal agreement with the United States. Of all the jokes that have been perpetrated upon the House of Commons the greatest is to hear the Tories talk about a reciprocal deal with the United States. Upon my word, you would think we were born only the day before yesterday, that we had not lived in 1911 and listened to those voluble gentlemen, headed by their own Prime Minister, travel from one end of Canada to the other denouncing in no uncertain terms the proposed treaty, fearful that American dollars would destroy Canadian sentiment. Now we have the same gentlemen telling us that this is one way we can save Canada, and that Canada will be saved because the Tory party are going to negotiate this treaty. I am quite certain the electors of this country will be told that fairy tale, that bedtime story, during the coming campaign; I am sure that will be one of the appeals of the Tories, particularly in western Canada, that they are going to being about reciprocity with the United States. That will hang in the air like a pillar of fire to lead those people who still have some faith in Tory promises to vote and work for the Tory party. But let me say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I am one of those who believe that so long as the Tory party are in office in this country we never will have a reciprocal deal with the United States. They do not mean what they say.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Why?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend asks me why. In the same breath they say they will not allow any of our secondary industries in Canada to be interfered with even by our best customer, the United Kingdom. Are they going to negotiate a reciprocity agreement with the United States, the country they have denounced as a menace to Canada, after the embargoes they have placed against the goods of that country and after they have used every conceivable method to shut out those goods? What was the cry when we were in office? They said, "Keep out American
2556	COMMONS
Long Adjournment-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
carrots and cabbage." We were told that we were ruining our vegetable growers by permitting carrots and cabbage to enter the country. Go to our stores to-day, and what do you see? Long before we have a carrot in Canada we are buying fresh vegetables; they come from the United States, and they will continue to come from that country until they are produced here, when they will be shut out for perhaps a month or two. Oh, what a wonderful party; what a spectacle! That is a mild word to apply to the situation that exists in Canada to-day with respect to the operations of this government.
Why do we not have an election? If hon. gentlemen opposite are as sure of themselves as they pretend to be; if they were so sure when we came to this session of parliament early in January, why do we not have an election? Why do they not submit themselves to the final court, the country, and find out exactly what the electors think about them, their policies and their administration? As I said a few moments ago I had expected a reduction in the duties on farm implements and textiles in order to make conditions a little easier for the farming industry of this country, but nothing happened. There was no mention whatever of any action of the kind. No doubt the government are hoping that through distress and difficulty in other countries some market may open up that will absorb the surplus products of this country, while day by day in my own city and province people are forced to abandon the homes which they have spent a lifetime to build up in the hope that they might have a competence for their old age. The only answer they receive from this government is that they can go on the old age pension, go into an unemployment camp or receive relief through the agency of the municipal authorities. Year by year we are told something is going to be done; why is it not done now? Not long ago we had the mayors of the various cities here, asking that the federal government take over the complete responsibility in connection with the payment of the dole. They received no answer. We have the provincial governments wanting to know what they can expect from the federal government, but they get no answer. The government are impotent, hoping like Micawber that something will turn up to-morrow that will relieve the situation. They have not done a single thing, nor do they seem to have a single idea as to what they should do to meet the actual situation that exists in Canada to-day. That is the happy situation.


Mr. SPENCE:: What answer would you give them?


Charles A. Stewart: They will get their answer, in due time, let me say to my hon. friend.


James Houston Spence: Tell us now.


Charles A. Stewart: The hon. member who has just interrupted, along with other hon. members campaigned in 1930 against the then government. They said they would work through the agency of the provinces, and stated further that unemployment was a national problem, leading the people of Canada to believe that they intended to take the whole responsibility for it.


James Houston Spence: No, no.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, exactly. They were not in power fifteen minutes before they discovered they did not have the authority to administer relief. That is the way they fooled the people of Canada; that is the way they would attempt to fool them again. Fortunately however the people are becoming wise in these matters. The Liberal party would do exactly as it agreed to do in 1930, namely, work in cooperation with the provinces, so far as relief is concerned. We would set up a commission for the purpose of controlling and issuing relief, and for the care of the unemployed. - I would not be surprised, if sufficient time elapses, to find that hon. members opposite have thought even of that; probably they will recommend a council for that purpose.
The advisory council which is to meet once in six months is a capital idea. The Prime Minister is to be the chairman and no doubt their efforts will be tremendously helpful in curing the present situation in Canada; I expect wonderful results. The trouble is however that hon. members opposite will never have a chance to let the council function. It will be like the rest of their promises to the people of Canada, promises they made so glibly on every occasion and failed to carry out. That is the situation as I see it.
Should it be necessary to wait for the recovery of the Prime Minister before holding an election? Why, there are any number of gentlemen in the government who, whether they are capable or not, at least think they are capable of carrying on. Certainly the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) could carry on if he were supported by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil). They would make an excellent pair to carry on the affairs of this country. Then, I wonder why the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) could not carry on if he had the support of the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott). What an excellent combination they would

________Long Adjournment-Mr. Bell (Hamilton)
make. Then, as they have been making love to our friends in the corner, can we not conceive what an excellent government we would have by joining the Minister of-


Eccles James Gott: I knew you would get all mixed up before you got through.


Charles A. Stewart: -the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) and the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail). I have no doubt the minister could easily persuade the hon. member to become superintendent of penitentiaries,-and what excellent results would be obtained. Then, my good friend, my revered friend, the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan)-would not he and Mr. Stevens, the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce, make an excellent pair to work together? Certainly the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) would support a government of that kind.


Mr. C. W. BELL (West Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to attempt to follow anything said by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I do feel-perhaps very wrongly-that at this present day and date the parliament of Canada must be more concerned in trying to do something to remedy conditions existing than simply scoring off opponents. I do feel the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) whom 1 have known for a great many years, whom I have admired and respected during all that time and whom to-day I admire and respect, regardless of any badinage across the floor of the house, is very anxious and earnest in his desire to seek a solution of the problems confronting this parliament and the country. It was for that reason and for that one only that I asked the hon. member what he had in mind, in regard to statements made by my right lion, leader, and I had no intention of throwing any disparagement on the hon. member, but asked my question in the hope something might come out which would assist the House of Commons to get a little farther towards a solution of the important problems facing us.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Now, of course,
if that is funny I am quite willing to have hon. members enjoy themselves. I am quite willing to have them laugh their heads off- and I don't know that much would be lost if they did. I am willing to sit down. I was just trying to lend my small assistance and to give what might be some help to the people of Canada. That I have desired to do from the time I entered parliament; that I have 92582-163
desired to do on the few Occasions I have risen to address this chamber. That I still desire to do.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Leslie Gordon Bell: And so long as my hon. friends who sit across the floor of the house think there is nothing better to do than to sneer at and to deride an honest effort, then I sit down.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Mr. G. W. McPHEE (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my humble word of protest-


James Houston Spence: Wonderful, wonderful!


George Washington McPhee: -to this proposed adjournment. What a spectacle this government presents to the opposition and to the country.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Don't worry about it.


George Washington McPhee: The government that was elected on the political effervescence of 1930 having received a blow on the solar plexus now wants an adjournment of six weeks to get its second wind. What a contrast, Mr. Speaker, politically speaking, between the knock-kneed, rickety, bandy-legged government of to-day-


James Houston Spence: Talking about yourself?


George Washington McPhee: -and the blatant, bellicose, braggadocio of the speeches over the radio during the first week of January last. I believe there was a real flutter in the dovecots of the Tory party after listening to those bedtime stories.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: There was a bigger one in the Grit party.


George Washington McPhee: Many a Tory said, "Never man spake like this man."


Ira Delbert Cotnam: That is what you thought, too.


George Washington McPhee: What were some of the statements he made? Probably I would do well to read two or three lines:
As a lawyer I had to do, for more than thirty years, with big business and' finance. I have some knowledge of finance.


James Houston Spence: That is more than you can say.


George Washington McPhee: And more than my hon. friend can say.


James Houston Spence: Hot air for yours.



Long Adjournment-Mr. McPhee


George Washington McPhee: No doubt my hon. friend is referring to himself. However if he wishes to heckle, may I tell him that I enjoy it, and I will hit him back just as hard.


James Houston Spence: Because you don't know any better.


George Washington McPhee: I have been in this house for ten years and outside of an interruption of that kind I have never yet heard the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) make any other statements. Then the Prime Minister continued:
When in the past I praised it (the capitalist system) I did so with knowledge. When now I analyze it and point to its defects, I do 60 also with knowledge. Bear that in mind.
Knowledge comes but- wisdom lingers.
Then I read one other line from another fireside story of the Prime Minister's, the third in the series:
The point ie, that at a time when your government was fighting for the life of this country, we were handicapped and embarrassed and opposed by a party which seemed to think far more of getting back into office than they did of you.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Washington McPhee: I am glad my hon. friends say "hear, hear," because when I heard that statement with respect to the capitalist system and the reforms proposed by the Tory party- since when in Heaven's name did the Tory party ever become the party of reform?-my mind went back to the little city of Guelph where I remember the Prime Minister made a speech in 1930 criticizing my right hon. leader for the countervailing duties in the Dunning budget. It would appear that tariffs and duties are the special prerogative of the Tory party in, this country, Mr. Speaker. [DOT] Well, the Prime Minister speaking at Guelph on that occasion of the countervailing duties said with reference to the right hon. leader of the Liberal party, "Whenever you have any convert doing something that he is not brought up to, he will always make a bad mess of it." I do not know whether that had any special significance being delivered in the city of Guelph, the seat of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). It might equally well have been delivered in the city of Fort William, the seat of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion), or at one or two other places that are graced by being represented by our Tory friends across the way. Now what about these reforms? How much has this present opposition blocked the present government in its reforms? Reform of the capitalist system! I go back to 1931. One of the first resolutions brought down in this

house by the present Prime Minister was to amend the income tax. This was no doubt a reform of the capitalist system. A resolution was brought down in this house on June 1, 1931, whereby the maximum income tax would be imposed on incomes of $25,000, and incomes over $25,000 would bear the same maximum tax of twenty-five per cent. But thanks to the Liberal opposition which blocked this reform the legislation stands now as it stood previously under the Liberal government. A man who had an income of half a million dollars, and we are told that there are two or three gentlemen in this country who have incomes of that size, under the Liberal income tax legislation that existed prior to 1931, and which exists to-day thanks to the Liberal opposition, paid $245,000 in income tax, but under the proposed reform of the right hon. the Prime Minister that man would have paid $125,000 only in income tax. That meant a saving to the man with an income of half a million dollars of $120,000, only $10,000 a month-not much when you say it quickly. But the leader of the government took offence because we criticized that particular reform of the capitalist system which he proposed, and then withdrew his resolution.


Mr. STITT (Selkirk):: Would the hon.
gentleman permit a question? Would he mind telling the house and country how much income tax that man is actually paying to-day under the law, not under proposals that were never carried into law?


George Washington McPhee: He is paying simply what
he paid when the Liberal government was in office, with one or two modifications.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


George Washington McPhee: Let me draw a picture-


Mr. RHODES:: Give us the facts.


George Washington McPhee: If my hon. friend's leader
had had his way in 1931 that man would not have paid the income tax he is paying to-day nor what he paid previous to 1931.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: He pays twice as much today.


George Washington McPhee: Let me draw a picture for the people of Canada in connection with this particular reform. I can imagine, Mr. Speaker, the power barons, the corduroy plutocrats, and the tinplate aristocrats coming around the council table when this proposed income tax reform in 1931 was being hatched. I can imagine these men on their knees praying that this great burden of income taxation should be removed from their already over-burdened

___________Long Adjournment-Mr. McPhee
shoulders. And who were the gods to whom they prayed? The millionaire Prime Minister of Canada, and sitting at his right he that sitteth at the receipt of custom, the former Minister of National Revenue, and the then Minister of Pensions and National Health, now occupying the gubernatorial chair in the province of New Brunswick, and across the council table from him the right hon. gentleman who now leads this house (Sir George Perley).
But there were other knights around that table, silent knights, and one of those silent knights represents the province of Saskatchewan as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), and another silent knight represents the province of Manitoba as Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy). How stoically these silent knights looked on at these other knights praying that this burden of income taxation should be removed from their overburdened shoulders, and if the silence of these silent knights in this House of Commons is any indication of their silence around that council table they might as well have been in a deaf and dumb institution where people talk with their fingers. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, if you can so far stretch your imagination, the venerable gentleman, the former Minister of Agriculture, my hon. friend from Melville (Mr. Motherwell) and the former Minister of the Interior, my hon. friend from West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart), sitting around that council chamber in silence while this iniquitous reform was about to be perpetrated upon the Canadian people. So much for reform No. 1.
Then I come to the next reform, the imperial conference agreement. We had heard in 1930 that all that was necessary in Canada was a dose of super-tariff taxation, that the panacea for all ouir ills was to be the tariff. My right hon. friend the leader of the government was to 'blast his way into the markets of the world. We had a special session of parliament at which the tariff was increased, doubled and trebled. Then the Prime Minister went to London to tell the good old free trade people of Great Britain what they should do; that what they should do was to impose a ten per cent duty upon imports in order to give Canada a preference in their market. That offer was rejected, and the Prime Minister came back to Canada. He addressed a meeting in Saskatchewan, in the armouries in the city of Regina, and I heard him over the radio. My hon. friend from West Edmonton has referred to reciprocity. The right hon. leader of the government said that, it was treason in 1911 to trade with our American cousins. Canada will become the 92582-1631
back door of Chicago-that was one of the slogans that he used all across this country. We would become the back door of the United1 States if we traded on equal terms with our cousins to the south. Then again in 1930 it was treason to trade with Great Britain under the Dunning budget. As I said, the leader of the government came back from London in the fall of 1930 somewhat crestfallen because the British people did not fall for his high tariff ideas so far as Britain was concerned. He called a meeting in Regina and I heard his speech over the radio. I had some friends in to listen to him, and what did we hear him telling the people of western Canada? We all know what he said during the elections of 1930. "Listen, you agriculturists from the west and all the other parts of Canada you who have been taught to mock at tariffs and applaud free trade. Tell me when did free trade fight for you. You say tariffs are only for the manufacturers. I will make them fight for you as well. I will use them to blast a way into the markets that have been closed to you." He came back in 1930 and at this meeting in Regina he said: My fellow Canadians who are now within sound of my voice, just at this minute Mr. Marler, the Canadian ambassador to Japan, is on his way to China to negotiate a treaty with that great nation for the sale of your Canadian wheat. China has always been a favourite of our Tory friends. It will be remembered that in 1912, having defeated reciprocity in 1911 because it was treason to trade with the Americans, Sir George Foster, then Minister of Trade and Commerce, went to China with a retinue from his department to negotiate a treaty with that country. In 1930 China seems to be the Mecca of the Tory party. The tragedy of it all is this, Mr. Speaker. We were taught in our early school days that the Chinese were a nation that lived on rice and rats, but it would seem that the Tory party under the leadership of Sir Robert Borden and under the leadership of the Prime Minister would have the Chinese go back on their traditions and give up their -rat traps and their chop sticks and buy Canadian wheat, Canadian ovens and Canadian flour. How much wheat did we sell to China?


Mr. ROWE:: Remarks like that will not help to sell it.


George Washington McPhee: It will sell just as much as the attempts of Mr. Marler, whose appointment my right hon. friend the leader of the government opposed. How much did we sell?
Then we had the second imperial conference in 1932. What were the results of this conference? A duty of ten per oent was
2560	COMMONS
Long Adjournment-Mr. McPhee
placed on barbed wire, a commodity which had come in free since 1897. A duty of twenty-five per cent was placed upon cream separators which had been permitted to come in free since 1897. That is the way my hon. friend who is a farmer would help the dairymen of this country. During the early days of this session we. were told by the Prime Minister that we would have an opportunity before this session ended of once more expressing our approval or disapproval of the imperial economic conference agreements. What happened to that resolution? The other day the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) referred to some legislation introduced by my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) as having been placed in cold storage. Anything placed in cold storage would have some chance of ressurection but this resolution to permit approval or disapproval of the imperial economic conference agreements has gone into the morgue as far as the rules and regulations of this house are concerned. It will never be resurrected.


William Earl Rowe: How would you vote on it if it was?


George Washington McPhee: Against it. I would do the same as the electors of South Oxford did last spring and as the electors in other parts of Ontario did later on in the year.


William Earl Rowe: Are you speaking for your party?


Ira Delbert Cotnam: How much money was spent in those constituencies?


George Washington McPhee: We were told by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull), a colleague of my hon. friend, that the leader of the government (Mr. Bennett) spent $750,000 of his own money in 1930. I assume my hon. friend knows how much was spent in South Oxford.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: It was not Beauharnois
money.
Mr. McPHEiE:	That seems to hurt. We
can go on to something else.
The next item of reform was technical education. This bill was passed with the unanimous approval of this house but it has been placed in cold storage; it has not yet been declared law by order in council. We come next to the investigation into price spreads which I suppose will be considered as a reform. The former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) is the only hon. member on the other side of the house who can be classed at all as a reformer. Yet he had his head chopped off by the man who announced himself during the first
fMr. McPhee.]
week in January as the Messiah of reform. I should like to place on Hansard a paragraph of the letter written by the former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) to the Prime Minister after he was decapitated. It reads:
Your letter dated October 26 accepting my resignation, was delivered to me at my home by your special messenger at 4.30 Saturday afternoon, October 27.
Apparently the mails were not considered swift enough and this letter had to be delivered by special messenger. It continues:
In your letter you seek to establish that in my work as chairman of the "price_ spreads and mass buying committee" I had enjoyed the full support of my colleagues of the government. This, sir, you know is not true.
From the moment of the organization of the committee, following my speech in Toronto of January 15 last, almost daily throughout the long period of the last session I was subjected to irritating criticisms. One day it would be regarding my manner as chairman, the next the treatment of witnesses, particularly that of Stanley McLean of Canada Packers and the heads of the Imperial Tobacco.
It would be interesting to place side by side with this letter the evidence in connection with the Imperial Tobacco Company. The letter continues:
Then the question of cost was constantly thrown in my face, and through it all from one of your senior members ran the constant refrain on a minor key, "what can you do about it anyway."
The fact that I refused to be influenced by these mischievous interferences is now advanced by you as evidence that I have had an "absolutely free hand." In the interests of simple truth I must protest your claim in that respect, for, on the contrary, there has been constant criticism emanating almost exclusively from a small minority of the cabinet who, together with yourself, now seize on the "pamphlet" as a culminating excuse for an unwarranted attack on me as chairman of the commission and as a minister of the crown.
It was only six months ago that the only supposed crusader for reform in the cabinet was being criticized by the right hon. gentleman who had announced himself during the first week in January, 1935, as the Messiah of reform.
We come now to the marketing bill. I suppose this will be considered a reform which we have blocked for the past five years. This is a Mussolini, sovietized bill. In this connection it is interesting to note that the poultry pool under the provisions of this bill has been defeated in the three western provinces. If the rest of Canada has the same idea in connection with this legislation I know hon. friends opposite will regret that this has been part of their reform policy.

Long Adjournment-Mr. Bradette
The next thing which I presume we shall be accused of obstructing is the budget-a budget that maintains a tax of one cent per pound on sugar and reduces the duty on alcoholic liquors by $3 a gallon. I presume this is the government's idea of a poor man's budget. It is a budget that supports the nation as the hangman's rope supports the hanged. Now here we are asked to approve of an adjournment for six weeks to enable this moribund government to get its second wind and to come back with more proposed reform legislation-a government which, according to its own Minister of Finance, admitted in the budget speech that it had gone into debt to the extent of $669,900,000 in its five years in office. In other words, hon. gentlemen have gone into debt $669,900,000 in 1,680 days, the number of days they have been in office-$400,000 a day. Just imagine what the adjournment would cost this country; $16,660 an hour, or $2,750 a minute, or $50 a second is the rate at which this government has gone into debt in 1,680 days in office, and we are asked to grant this adjournment. Multiply the 42 days of the adjournment by $400,000 per day and you will find this country going into debt to the extent of $16,800,000 during the time of this adjournment, the time gentlemen across the way want to get their second wind. They have received a blow on the solar plexus and cannot carry on unless they get their breath again.
I oppose the adjournment on grounds of policy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Washington McPhee: If my hon. friends will keep quiet over there I will give them the antithesis in this matter of debt. According to the Minister of Finance the net debt of Canada has increased to the extent of $869,900,000 in the five years from 1930 when they took office to March 31, 1935. Contrast that with the five years preceding 1980. During those five years the public debt of Canada was retired out of surplus revenue to the extent of $257,806,000. There is the contrast between the two.


An hon. MEMBER:: Give us the whole story.


George Washington McPhee: Some day I will, but I have not the time now, and the hon. gentleman in his present mind has not the intelligence to grasp it if 1 did. The people of this country want an election. All over the country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, on the political horizon is inscribed in letters that can be
read from afar: Mene mene tekel upharsin: You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting.
The people of this country are anxious to take advantage of the privilege handed down to them by Liberals who have gone before and to place the sacred symbol of the cross on the sacred parchment, the ballot; and when they do, hon. gentlemen across the way will go out of office, so that in the next parliament there will not be a shadow of the present government in this house.


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North. Timis-kaming):: I certainly agree with the present
amendment for the good reason that not only has the government a great deal of legislation still to put through but the fact that what it has already accomplished will not meet the situation that exists in the country to-day. I think I am perfectly in order in directing the attention of the house to certain conditions which must be faced, more particularly in northern Ontario.
I wish to discuss two very important subjects this afternoon, the first being the radio situation in our section of the country and secondly the work on the trans-Canada highway. May I observe in passing, Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Morand), that all sections of the country greatly appreciated the work which . you did as chairman of the radio committee. I was allowed to state before that important committee the case for our section of the country and I am glad to say that I was given a very good reception. I am bound to add, however, that we were greatly disappointed in the result that has been obtained after four years of experience with the radio commission. I am not criticizing any individual members of the commission, but I am pointing out that no steps have been taken to ensure the rft:ep-tion which we think we are entitled to. It is true that in the last two years local stations have been erected at North Bay, Kirkland Lake and the town of Timmins, and with these stations we have no quarrel. They have performed a useful function and done a great deal of good in their own localities, but surely they do not serve the purposes of the other sections of that country. We have not been given the service we are entitled to get, not only in northern Ontario but also in northern Quebec. On that ground alone, I contend that we should have a very brief adjournment, and in the meantime every section of the country, through its federal representatives, should be given an opportunity to state, its grievance in this regard. We were very hopeful a few weeks ago when we learned, through certain newspaper reports, that a high powered station


Mr. H. B. McKINNON (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with other hon. members in expressing my pleasure in the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is again regaining health, and that at the forthcoming jubilee he will be well enough to represent Canada in Great Britain.
As a member of this chamber elected in one of the more recent by-elections, and coming from a constituency which represents a typical cross section of public opinion throughout the dominion, may I say that in my view the results in that by-election were highly significant. To a great extent my constituency consists of industrial workers, although many farmers are scattered throughout the various sections of it. As one who has belonged to the army of industrial workers I have been vastly interested in the social legislation placed before parliament at the present session. In my working days I had a keen interest in these matters, and as a consequence the legislation placed before us has received my careful study. I find in it a number of provisions with which I do not entirely agree, although I do approve of the general principle involved.
2566	COMMONS
Long Adjournment

Mr. McKinnon
Let us turn to the legislation for unemployment insurance. In my opinion, sir, that measure does not go far enough. I am of the opinion it should include many workers who, as the Prime Minister pointed out, are very seldom unemployed. If we are to apply the law of averages I say the legislation should be extended to include workers employed in banks, in insurance offices and in other vocations,-workers who are not now included. I can remember that in 1930 the statement was made during the campaign that if elected the 'Conservative party would take care of the unemployed. Well, they were elected, but they have had very little success in carrying out their promise. The unemployment insurance legislation merely shifts the burden to the shoulders of the employed. Under normal conditions in Canada the vast majority of people now employed will, undoubtedly, continue to be employed. Consequently while these employed persons have no objection to bearing their fair share of the costs they feel the privilege should be extended so that the law of averages should apply. My view is that the scheme would be more effective if it were extended to include more than it does at the present time.
If I remember correctly, during the campaign of 1930, speaking in the maritimes, the present Prime Minister expressed a great deal of sympathy for the railway employees. He felt they were being unjustly treated, and stated, so I understand, that if the Conservative party were returned to power two trains would be running for every one train running at that date. Well, since he took office 60,000 or 70,000 railway men in Canada have lost their employment. It would seem, therefore, that the Prime Minister's promise to have two trains running where only one had run previously did not work out as well as the right hon. gentleman imagined it would.
The government has undertaken the setting of minimum wages. Labour organizations in Canada have always contended that they do not want minimum wage legislation, because employers invariably have construed minimum wage measures as measures setting maximum wages. However, conditions have changed and the government has seen fit to introduce such legislation. There is one principle which I think should be followed in connection with that matter. It could not very well be worked out when it was a question of private negotiation between labour organizations and employers, but it should be possible to work it out now. A man with a family should most certainly receive more money for his labour than a man who has no

children, if we consider that children are an asset to the nation. A man with a family of six or seven or eight should be given some consideration over and above what is given to the man who is single.
I was vastly interested also in the constitutional aspects of the question. The Prime Minister and his side were verj' sure that this legislation was within the power of this parliament to enact. Our leader and the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) were equally sure that it was not. As a new member of the house I was confused by these conflicting opinions and did not know exactly where I was at. I was in very great doubt until I read a notice of motion that had been placed on the order paper of the legislature of the province of Ontario shortly after the leader of the opposition in the Ontario legislature had been down here in Ottawa. That notice of motion by the Hon. Mr. Price reads as follows:
Be it resolved that this legislature approves of the principle of the legislation for insurance against unemployment and other forms of social insurance recently given a unanimous second reading in the House of Commons at Ottawa and is prepared to supplement, complement or augment such laws of the parliament of Canada by provincial legislation, so that the dominion wide scope of unemployment insurance may be maintained without recourse to litigation over questions of jurisdiction.
After reading that notice of motion I was entirely satisfied in my own mind that the position taken by the leader of the Liberal party in this house and by the ex-Minister of Justice was sound, because if the government had been so sure of their position what could be the purpose or necessity of having this resolution brought up in the Ontario legislature?
In common with the rest of the members on this side of the house I very much object to the long adjournment that it is proposed to take. It will put the members, particularly those from distant parts of Canada, in a very embarrassing position, because when they go to their constituencies the first question they will be asked will be: When are we going to have an election? Every place I go I hear that question asked. Business is being held up. Business people do not want to make commitments. There is an atmosphere of uncertainty until this question of the election is decided. People want to have the air cleared, and the only way to do it is by giving them an opportunity of saying what government they want here at Ottawa to bring down legislation that will be in their interests.
Although I represent an industrial riding- and I may say that my interests have been largely industrial all my days-I should like

Long Adjournment-Mr. Girouard
to say on behalf of the rural parts of the district I represent that the farmers have been complaining bitterly about the prices they have been receiving for their products. The Ottawa agreements, which were supposed to do so much for the farmers of this country, are certainly not finding much favour in the constituency I have the honour to represent. All the arguments that we have heard advanced in this house in favour of the Ottawa agreements were made by various speakers in the by-election in my constituency last September. They were put forward quite plainly and I believe quite fairly to the electors of my district, and of course the result is history now. The people there could not see where this legislation was benefiting them in any way, shape or form.
There are industries in my riding that will be vitally affected by the reciprocal arrangement that is now in course of negotiation with the United States. I do not suppose I should say very much about it, as negotiations are still pending, but I should like to point out the position in which some of the companies in my riding find themselves. Their market is necessarily to the south. In the year 1928 one of these firms shipped out 86 million feet of lumber. That figure dropped in 1932 to 21 million feet, and in addition the value of the lumber dropped from $30 a thousand in 1928 to S19 a thousand in 1934. I would urge upon the government that these firms are finding it very difficult to carry on, and in any negotiations that take place I would urge upon the government that some concession be given to our timber operators. There is now a one dollar tariff and a three dollar excise tax against our shipments of timber to the United States. I do not know that it makes any difference what the tax is called, but it is certainly a burden on these industries which they are really unable to carry. Along the border we have had a very serious situation, and it would have been much worse had it not been for the fact that some concessions were given by the Ontario government to our timber operators to enable them to carry on. But they will need more assistance than that, and I urge upon the government that they endeavour in the treaty negotiations now in progress to see that such assistance is given.
Mr. WILFRID GIROUARD (Drummond-
Arthabaska):	Mr. Speaker, the government's
determination to adjourn the present session until May 20th clearly shows that they intend to remain in office until the extreme limit, in spite of the lack of confidence which was clearly expressed in different parts of the country. Nothing could better illustrate
the fear felt by the government than to see them try to delay the expiration of their term-which will be a fatal date for them- until they are bound by the constitution to face the electorate. We have seldom seen such contempt for our parliamentary practice and such unjustified refusal to grant an election to the people who, especially since a year, demand a change in the management of public affairs.
Rather than consider an adjournment-an adjournment that is unnecessary, but will cost a lot money to the already overburdened taxpayers-the government ought to introduce measures to settle the most pressing problems at the present time. Among these problems which the government has neglected since five years, or for which it has failed to seek some effective solution, one must certainly mention the painful conditions under which the farming industry is striving at present.
Representing as I do a riding where butter and cheese making constitutes the main source of revenue for the farming community, I may surely be allowed to call the attention of the house to the fact that no proper steps were taken since five years to increase the price of these products. In order to convince oneself and to establish the difference between a promise and its realization, I shall remind you of what the farmer of this country had a right to expect, by quoting a short extract from a speech delivered by the right honourable prime minister at Ormstown, on June 30, 1930, as reported by the Ottawa Citizen:
It was necessary that farmers should receive just compensation for their efforts "and reward's equal to the professions" to keep Canadian boys and girls on the farm. Agriculture stood first in Canadian development . .. "we must supply the same advantages to agriculture as to other activities. It must be made as profitable as any other profession in which men are employed."
Mr. Speaker, after five years in office, the prime minister and his colleagues have not yet presented any measures to give the farming industry benefits equal to those granted other occupations. They forgot their pledges of 1930 that agriculture was to be made more remunerative and should be first cared for by those who lead this country. I regret to say that instead of stating a policy which would help the farmer, the greatest anxiety of this government, its first care, has been simply to secure an adjournment.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), while putting his estimates through the house in 1932, said, at page 2795 of Hansard, about butter and cheese:
However, there is another dairy product which we can produce and sell in the old country markets at a premium; I refer to cheese-

Long Adjournment-Mr. Girouard
So I think if we are to concentrate on dairy products we should concentrate on cheese, and since many think we cannot separate butter and cheese, what assists one is bound to assist the other as well.
The minister suggested a greater production of cheese and some time later, during the summer months, the Ottawa agreements were reached. Not only has our production of cheese been dwindling, but our exports of that product were alarmingly reduced as a result of the agreements.
Although it might not be very pleasant for this house, sir, it is of importance in this occasion to give figures in order to prove that the agreements reached at the Ottawa Imperial Economic Conference, in the year 1932, have been damaging to our agricultural class in the province of Quebec, in so far as our production and exports of cheese have been reduced. In1 the year 1931, Canada exported to England 706,726 ewt.; in 1932, when the agreements had not had any result yet, we were exporting, also to Great Britain, 747,417 cwt. In 1933, after the agreements had been operating, a great reduction took place, and our exports stood at 629,498 cwt., then dropped to 526,508 cwt. in 1934.
In December, 1934, we exported to England 2,927,000 pounds of cheese, whereas, for the same period in 1933, our exports were 6,408,512 pounds. In the Commercial Intelligence Journal of March 2, 1935, I find the following on the subject of our cheese exports to Great Britain:
Canada, with 520.221 hundredweight of cheese out of a total of 2,988,567 hundredweight, is now relatively an unimportant factor in this trade in which at one time she was preeminent.
Since the Ottawa agreements have been signed, British imports of Canadian oheese have dropped from year to year. Here is an official government publication declaring, in March, 1935, that Canada is in a poor position in respect of cheese exports.
While our exports were dwindling, Australia and New Zealand, who signed the Ottawa agreements, were shipping far greater quantities of their cheese; that is to say, while our exports were reduced, the exports from those two countries were reaching a considerably higher figure, to the prejudice of our own farmers. In 1931, England imported 1,732,000 cwt. from New Zealand; in 1933, 2,059,393 cwt. and, in the eleven months ending November 30, 1934, New Zealand shipped 1,973,703 cwt. Australian exports are also greater. I submit respectfully, sir, that, instead of asking for an adjournment of the house, the government would be well advised to review the Ottawa

agreements in order to put our cheese factories in the same favourable position as they were before the conclusion of those agreements.
The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger), in his splendid speech this afternoon, reminded us that one of the chief causes of the miserable situation in which the Canadian farmer finds himself to-day might be found in the fact that our farmers are selling their products at a low figure, while they have to pay high prices for the manufactured goods they have to buy.
Farmers in my constituency-and those of Quebec generally-have signed a petition addressed to the Prime Minister of this Dominion asking the government to fix a minimum price on a number of products and establish an export premium on butter and cheese. As this petition is of great importance, perhaps the house will allow me to quote it. Having described the pitiful condition of our farmers, they were asking the government, in January last, to fix-
... a minimum price as follows on the following products: butter, thirty cents per pound; cheese, fifteen cents per pound; eggs, twenty-five cents per dozen; pork, ten cents per pound; potatoes, fifty cents per bag.
You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers who signed this petition are very moderate in their claims.
They ask, in the second place, for an export bonus on cheese as well' as on butter. Their petition continues:
The undersigned believe that with such a minimum price and such an export bonus, the agricultural situation, which forms the basis of our economic system, would very appreciably improve and that, as a result, the general business situation of the country would benefit to a great extent.
There is at present a minimum price on wheat; this government has already granted a bonus of 5 cents a bushel on wheat exports, and the right hon. the Prime Minister has moreover announced a bill to reduce the hours of labour and one to establish a minimum wage. The legislation requested by the signers of this petition is somewhat similar to that which the Prime Minister has submitted to us. In order that such legislation may be effectual, it must necessarily apply to the whole country, as butter and cheese are produced in every province of Canada.
The ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), in his letter of January 19, 1934, which was at the same time as his letter of resignation dated October 26, 1934, wrote to the Prime Minister as follows:
On your return from the International Economic Conference I submitted to you in writing, and discussed later with you in conversation, proposals regarding certain problems

Post Office Act-Newspapers
in Canada, among them being the plight of the butter producer, and the necessity of action being taken before the winter months set in, to raise the price of butter to the producer,-
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had this plan before him for over a year, but he did nothing about it. That is no doubt the reason why the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce added to his letter from which I have just quoted the following words:
-you will allow me to say most clearly that I fear you have permitted certain problems of a more or less international or general character to so obsess your mind and your attention that it has made it impossible for you to appreciate some of these pressing Canadian problems, which, while difficult of solution, are quite within the power of parliament.
If, as the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce has stated-and he had been the Prime Minister's colleague during four years-international questions so obsessed the mind of the Prime Minister as to make him neglect purely Canadian questions, it is not surprising that he and his colleagues should not have had time to direct their thoughts towards improving agricultural conditions in this country.
I transmitted to the right hon. the Prime Minister petitions signed by a large number of farmers in my constituency, and I sincerely trust that the ministers from the province of Quebec will remind their chief of the promise he made in. 1930 to obtain for the farmer a higher price for his products and that they will urge him to grant the request contained in these petitions.	.


Mr. POULIOT (Translation):: Hear, hear.


Mr. GIROUARD (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the reasons that lead ne to oppose the adjournment requested by ;he government. The agricultural problem of this country requires an immediate solution. This is not the time for an adjournment. On the contrary, it is the time to provide remedies and to fulfil the promises made to the farmers of the country and of the province of Quebec, particularly in regard to butter and cheese. The ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce communicated to the government in 1933 a plan to increase the price level of butter and cheese in this country. His plan was not accepted by the government. It seems to me that if the government really had the interests of the farming class at heart, they would, instead of asking for a one-month adjournment, immediately bring forward the measures required to increase the price of the principal products marketed by the farmers of Canada.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto East) moved the third reading of Bill No. 50, to amend the Post Office Act (newspaper ownership).
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: Before this bill is read the third time I wish to say a few words regarding it, seeing that I had not an opportunity of joining in the discussion when it was previously before the house. I do not exactly desire to oppose the bill but rather to qualify the support I am willing to give it. There is nothing wrong in principle about it, but I am afraid it will not serve any great purpose. In the first place I regret that it proceds in an indirect way. I appreciate the fact that it might not have been possible to put through a bill covering this subject which would deal directly with it, but I have my doubts as to whether we might not safely have left the matter alone instead of proceeding with it as here proposed. It is a bill to amend the Post Office Act, though the purpose is to obtain a list of the shareholders, owners and others associated with every newspaper. As pointed out before in the discussion in committee- and I think it was also pointed out when a similar bill was before the house in previous sessions-there is no possible sanction for it, though the bill declares that if its provisions are not observed by any publication that publication shall be denied the privileges of the mail. This is an indirect and circuitous way of dealing with the matter, and it leaves in my mind a doubt whether this parliament could deal with it in a direct and more regular way. I admit that at the present time the privileges granted by the Post Office Department to large newspapers is so considerable, in the reduction of post office rates, that the sanction may work; but I wish to qualify that part of the bill. I do not think that this way of legislating on different matters should be greatly encouraged, even if in this instance it may seem to be the proper method of dealing with a situation that might not be met otherwise.
The main point I wish to make is that even if you succeed in obtaining a list of editors, publishers, shareholders and others connected with a newspaper-my hon. friend has tried to make it as complete as possible-I am not sure that this will finally achieve the purpose the hon. gentleman has in mind. A list of
Post Office Act-N ewspapers

the names of owners and especially shareholders of a large newspaper to-day will not necessarily disclose the motive that may be behind a particular attitude which that paper takes. A newspaper to-day is primarily a business concern and quite a number of persons invest their money in it, as in any other industrial enterprise, merely for possible profit. They are not necessarily interested in the attitude of the paper on a certain occasion towards a particular question.
In Montreal for a considerable time we had two English papers published in the evening, one giving the Conservative attitude and the other the Liberal, and yet it was well known that they belonged to the same man, the object of the so-called Liberal newspaper being merely to close the field of competition in order that the larger paper might have it all its own way. You may say that this is the very thing which this bill would prevent, inasmuch as it would compel the owner to disclose his identity and the fact that he owned both newspapers. But the fact is that everyone was aware of his ownership of these papers; it was common knowledge. Had a bill like this been in force then there is no doubt that he would have used other names so as to avoid disclosing his ownership of one of the papers. A bill such as this might have operated in the opposite direction to that which the hon. gentleman desires.
I would point out further that newspapers are the year round primarily purveyors of information. The old party paper which used to give only one side has pretty well disappeared; to-day a newspaper of a certain standing gives information on both sides. I do not overlook the fact that we have very strong party newspapers which, through their editorials, espouse a political cause and certainly exert an influence in that field. But even such newspapers, if they wish to retain their standing in newspaperdom, must convey information to the people; they must give information on both sides of the question-or may I say, in deference to my hon. friends in the corner, on all three sides of the question. With respect to a party paper of that description, supporting one or other political group, it is not very material that you should know who precisely is the man or who are the men giving it financial support. You know that it is Liberal or that it is Conservative. But the larger newspaper-and we have quite a number of them to-day-is not

devoted strictly to one or other of the political parties; it is a business concern, a purveyor of information; it disseminates information in all directions, gathering it from all sources, and its pages are read, if it is a so-called Conservative paper, by Liberal readers, and vice versa if it is supposed to be a liberal journal. And it is read by those belonging to the third party. But the main object of such newspapers is, I repeat, not political; it is a business proposition. And when these newspapers attain a certain degree of efficiency as carriers of news they also become a medium for advertising. Here again it is merely an industrial concern. I do not'think there is any need to get a list of all the people interested in a newspaper carrying advertisements or printing news in that way, any more than there would be such a need with regard to any other industrial enterprise. For that reason, it seems to me that even if this bill is adopted it will not serve the purpose its promoter has in mind.
Judging by his own commentaries, the object the sponsor of the bill seeks to attain is to find out who is the sinister influence behind a certain attitude on the part of a newspaper towards a particular question, or who is the political fiend that has inspired a certain comment on a certain bill. I do not think you will obtain that information by getting a list of the shareholders of newspapers, for the reasons I have given. I repeat, most of the shareholders are interested in the paper for business reasons; they are anxious to see the paper maintain its circulation by disseminating news to as large a number of subscribers as possible, and they want it to get as many advertisements as it can. If at a particular moment in the life of a newspaper -I am not speaking of the party newspaper but of the large journals-it appears to support a particular party in the first part of the year and another party in the latter part of the year, then I do not think that by obtaining a list of the shareholders you will find out the reason for these changes in the newspaper's atmosphere. If that sort of paper wishes to carry special propaganda, those who are really interested will carefully hide behind fictitious names; they will take care not to disclose their identity. This list, prepared with great care and submitted to my genial friend the Postmaster General, will not disclose the purpose behind it.
I read in subsection 2 that it is also proposed to have all reading or editorial matter for the publication of which money is paid or valuable consideration given plainly marked

Post Office Act-Newspapers
"advertisement." That also reads very well, but what does it mean? It means that if editorial matter is directly paid for by someone who wants it published, it will be marked "advertisement," but anyone with a little experience in newspapers knows that is not the way it is done. A financial institution or industrial concern will give an advertisement to a newspaper and will pay for it at so much per line. Then they will submit besides some reading matter which they suggest it would be desirable for the paper to publish, but they do not pay for it. It is not likely the reading matter would be published if the advertisement were not published, but in the long run when a paper has a client of that description there is no money paid directly for the publication of such reading matter. There again you will catch the small fish but miss the larger one. If a man wants a little bit of reading matter printed to serve a special purpose and pays for it, you reach him, but a large concern that has a contract for a year with a newspaper, and there is an understanding that these men, being good clients, should be treated liberally, reading matter will be printed in the paper for which they do not pay. That will not come under this section at all; yet there is no doubt that it is advertising in the same sense as the smaller ones I have just referred to.
From these remarks it would appear that I am not very strongly in favour of the bill. But I do not desire to oppose it. I do not think it is going to be very useful, but at the same time I believe it is harmless. I have no objection to the list of shareholders of a newspaper being known to the public. But from my experience as a newspaper man I wish to warn the public against attaching too much importance to such a bill, or concluding from the publication of such names that those people and those only are responsible for whatever the newspaper publishes. In short, this bill is very much like some of the reforms of the government; it is good in principle but it is not going to accomplish very much in practice.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: While I am quite in favour of this bill, I take this opportunity, now that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) is here, of asking if he would be good enough to give his view. I draw his attention to subsection 2, which I submit conflicts with the jurisdiction of the provinces over property and civil rights. In the first place this is an act to amend the Post Office Act, but subsection 2 has no reference to the Post Office Act in any way, shape or form. This subsection
requires that any matter published for which money or other valuable consideration is given shall be marked "advertisement", and for failure to comply with this requirement a fine of not less than $50 and not more than $500 is provided. That is a peculiar provision to put under the Post Office Act. As I said the other night, a similar bill was put through this house some years ago and was thrown out in the other chamber for the reason that it conflicted with the rights of the provinces.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: I have no objection to expressing my own personal opinion, but I believe it is the rule that it is not proper to ask for legal opinions from the Minister of Justice in regard to these matters. However, I think that the section referred to is within the competence of this parliament if it sees fit to enact it.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (East Toronto):: With reference to the objections taken in the house last Friday night to this bill and the question of jurisdiction raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), under the British North America Act the regulation of the post office is under federal jurisdiction. Subsection 2, to which the hon. gentleman referred, is simply a regulation for the post office. The Postmaster General can refuse admission to the mails of any newspaper in Canada and need not give any reason for doing so. For that reason the section is intra vires of this parliament. It does not in any sense relate to property and civil rights.
With reference to the remarks of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), who supports the bill, I entirely agree with his comments about certain scurrilous publications. They are not newspapers; they do not conform to the law of libel and slander; they show np editor or office of publication, and parliament should in some way control that type of scurrilous circular. They do not come under the provisions of the Post Office Act; they are under the authority of the chief electoral officer under the new election act, and it is his duty to see that this class of literature is prohibited. It is contrary to both the Dominion Elections Act and the criminal code as well as the law of libel and slander, which is provincial. If the hon. gentleman will draft an amendment to the Dominion Elections Act to take care of circulars and dodgers of this kind used at election time, commonly known as roorbacks, I will second it. Such publications do not come under this
2572	COMMONS
Long Adjournment-Mr. MacMillan (Mackenzie)
bill or any act of the federal or provincial legislatures, because they are not newspapers.
Referring to the observations of the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), he was a member of the administration that supported this bill for six years in this house. While he is not opposing the bill, he offered some criticisms of it; but I may tell him that this has been the law in England for many years and in the United States since 1912, and it has worked well. Why should any society, because it is incorporated under the newspaper law, be free from obligation to disclose any details regarding its business? This is a very moderate bill, providing for what has been found to be in the public interest. There never was a time in the history of this country, in view of the many important problems facing it, when it was more necessary that hon. members should speak out and demand publicity as to the owners of that small section of the press that would be opposed to this bill. I paid tribute the other night to what the press has done, and I need not say anything further on that. I believe this is good legislation. It was part of the Liberal platform of 1919. It originated with the Liberal party in Great Britain. This particular bill has been examined by the law officers and other lawyers, and is intra vires of this parliament.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
. WAYS AND MEANS


OBJECTION TO PROLONGED ADJOURNMENT EXPRESSED IN AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mir. Rhodes for committee of ways and means and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Lapointe.
Mr. J. A. MacMILLAN (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment which is now before the house is timely and imperative. There is no other way of regarding it. The conditions which prevail throughout the entire country demand our immediate and undivided attention. During the first and second weeks of this year the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) delivered a series of radio addresses, and by the statements he made therein set the country all agog. The old order, which has existed for many centuries, was to be obliterated, he said, and replaced by a new social order. This new social order has been advocated by and has been a part of the policy of the Liberal party for many years. When the house opened this year and the government
rMr. Church.]
undertook to place this reform legislation on the statute books, therefore, the official opposition rendered every assistance possible in order to facilitate the passing of these measures so they would become law and be put into operation in this country. Now we have the government coming forward with the proposal that we should have an adjournment of five or six weeks. Having regard to the conditions that prevail throughout the country I contend that this request is very unreasonable and savours of insincerity. There is not a political party in this house, or in the country so far as that goes, that is better equipped to put these reform measures into operation than the Liberal party, because the Liberal party is a party of action and reform.
Some	hon.	MEMBERS:	Oh, oh.Some	hon.	MEMBERS:	Hear, hear.


John Angus MacMillan: I am glad that my statement meets with approval on the other side of the house as well as on this side. I hope it will not be considered that I am using	veiy strong	language when	Ideclare	that	the present	government	is	a
government of usurpers. This government came into office in August, 1930. Its popularity began its great and unparalleled retreat in 1932. In that year a by-election was held in the constituency of South Huron, and naturally it was expected, as is always expected, that a supporter of the government would be returned. It is only fair to the government to say that the seat was held by a Liberal prior to the by-election, but the important point to consider is that in the by-election a Liberal was elected by a greater majority than had been given the previous candidate in 1930. That was the first intimation to the government that their popularity was on the wane to a considerable extent.
Then in August, 1933, a provincial election was held in the banner province of Liberalism, Nova Scotia. A Conservative government dissolved the legislature, but after the election the Liberal party formed a government. Then there were three by-elections in different parts of Canada on October 23 of the same year. The constituency of Restigouche-Madawaska, which was represented by a Conservative prior to the by-election, returned a Liberal by such a handsome majority that the Conservative candidate contributed $200 to the general revenue of the Dominion of Canada. In the constituency of Yamaska a Liberal was returned with an increased majority, and in the constituency of Mackenzie a Liberal was elected wth a majority of 1,614. That was

Long Adjournment-Mr. MacMillan (Mackenzie)
the first time in twenty-one or twenty-two years that a Liberal candidate had been elected to represent that constituency. Then a provincial election was held in British Columbia; a Conservative government dissolved the legislature but when it reassembled after the general election a Liberal government was in office. That was a further indication to this government that they should seriously consider dissolving parliament and consulting the people.
On June 19, 1934, a terrible catastrophe-so far as the interests of the Conservative party were concerned-occurred in two widely separated parts of the dominion. In the province of Ontario a Conservative government dissolved the legislature, but after the election the Liberal party formed the government. In the province of Saskatchewan a Conservative government dissolved the legislature but after the election not a single Conservative was returned to tell the tale. Of fifty-five members returned fifty were Liberals and five belonged to the new party which is fast disappearing. Of those five only one was elected by a majority vote. We all remember the good old hymn:
Time like an ever rolling stream
Bears all its sons away-
Because of this there were three by-elections in the province of Ontario, and two other vacancies caused by the resignation of members. I am not going to mention the political complexions of those constituencies prior to the by-elections, which were held September 24, 1934, but as a result four Liberals and one very independent Conservative were returned. I submit that the day following those by-elections the government should have acquiesced in the logic of events, made an unconditional surrender and gone to the people. So in relating the political events of the Dominion of Canada in the last three years I am sure hon. members will agree that I did not use a very strong term when I said that this was a government of usurpers.
You know, Mr. Speaker, when rats know that the ship is sinking they drop their can openers and beat it by the short route. The ship of state of the Dominion of Canada has been bombarded from all sides for the last three years, but the captain and crew, instead of veering the vessel to port, made for the open sea. With regard to these by-elections to which I referred and the representatives returned to this House of Commons, in all humility I am going to make the statement that the most important and the biggest shot of all came from the con-92582-104
stituency of Mackenzie. My reason for making that statement is that that shot not only did untold harm to the ship of state; it also ricocheted and knocked the block clean off an unnatural enemy of the state.
Now, Mr. Speaker, having related the political events that have taken place in this dominion since 1932, let us come to the conditions which exist at the present time. I submit that the government must go further than they have gone in order to assist the people and alleviate the distress which exists in many parts of the country to-day. I am referring more particularly to western Canada, from which I come. Every part of the country is well represented in this house; each member can speak for the part he represents, but I am now speaking for the province of Saskatchewan, and the conditions that prevail in that province are the conditions that prevail in the provinces of Manitoba and Alberta. We have had a period of depression lasting for five years. The farmers, who form the basic industry of the three prairie provinces, have not been able to make ends meet. That has not been through any fault of the farmer or the toiler; it has been because conditions have prevailed over which they have had no control. We must remember that many enterprises in this country have made profits and declared dividends even during the period of depression. The chartered banks and other financial institutions have been declaring dividends since 1930. Of course they declared dividends prior to that time, but I am not going beyond 1930, when the depression began. Even in 1932, probably the poorest year in Canadian history, the chartered banks and financial institutions of this country declared dividends while the farmers were declaring losses. The farmers are not able to make ends meet; they cannot meet the obligations they incurred during days of prosperity. Something must be done to help those people, and I submit that before dissolution of parliament the government should do more than it has done in the past. I do not speak in any spirit of criticism, because undoubtedly the government has experienced difficulties since attaining office in 1930. I submit, however, that they could have done more than they have done. It is inevitable that the debts of the country are not going to be paid one hundred per cent. I believe I made the same statement when I spoke last year in the debate on the budget. What can be done? I submit the government could do something, and that it would not be necessary to add one cent to our public debt. When I make these

2574	COMMONS
Long Adjournment-Mr. MacMillan (Mackenzie)
observations I mean there must be an adjustment of debts.
The statement may be made that legislation was passed last year which would have the effect of helping people who are in debt and who wish to make settlements of those debts. The farmers throughout the country are an independent class of people, a condition which I believe is only natural when we realize that day in and day out they are communing with nature. They are men of honour; they are men with every desire to meet the obligations which they have incurred, and they do not ask reductions or anything else. However when those farmers are placed in a position where they cannot meet their obligations then I submit it behooves the government, and every person in a position to do so, to render assistance to those people by making it possible for them to meet their obligations.
The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation have a platform. Of course their platform changes with every new moon, but since that party came into existence there is at least one plank they have always had, namely the statutory settlement of debts. I submit that is the only way to assist the farmers. Although giving the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) due credit for the legislation passed during the last session, I must say that when the farmer has to prostrate himself before his creditor, when he has to make an application to an official receiver in order to bring himself and his creditor together for the purpose of making satisfactory arrangements, he is placing himself in an undesirable position. Under conditions such as I have described, conditions over which the farmer has no control, there should be a statutory declaration on the compromise of debts, and debts should be classified. That is the only way in which settlements can be properly made, namely by statutory regulation.
Speaking of the classification of debts, may I illustrate by some further observations. There is an old saying that every tub must stand on its own bottom. Let us consider the man who has borrowed $1,000 in cash and given security by way of a mortgage on his homestead. I say that $1,000 should be paid. Some arrangements should be made with regard to interest. I will go farther and say that since the year 1930 any man who has been able to pay interest on his indebtedness 

and if he has done that he has done well- a portion of that interest should be credited by compromising on the interest and reducing it to a rate not higher than five per cent. On the other hand if a man sells me a quarter section of land, and by selling me that quarter section makes a profit of $1,500, then I say 
that not only should the interest be adjusted but the profit he made on that transaction should be compromised as well. I use that illustration so that hon. members will understand what I mean, namely that the debts should be classified.
I am not going to say any more about debts: possibly all of us talk too much about them. May I now come to another matter which in my view is of extreme importance to the people of Canada, namely the reform measures, some of which have already been introduced by the government. In all fairness may I say that those reform measures are not being received very cordially by the people throughout the country. At least after giving them serious consideration the people are not very enthusiastic about them. According to a biography of the Prime Minister which I read only a short time ago I believe he is the type of man who undoubtedly attended Sunday School in his early years, and for that reason must be conversant with the bible. When they were starting out on a great reform program which was to replace the order that has been in existence for three or four centuries they should have gone back to Holy Writ and endeavoured to obtain some assistance therefrom. From that book they should have taken a guide which could have been followed in forming their reform legislation. Why did they not take a lesson from the life of Jacob, for example? We read that at one time Jacob was travelling from Beer-sheba to Haran-and by the way, he travelled by aeroplane, and that was about five thousand years ago. I say that because the good old book tells us that he landed on a .certain place, and for that reason I judge he must have travelled by plane. Anyway, we learn that after the setting of the sun he landed on this certain place, and being very tired prepared for himself a bed. He took a few stones, placed them together, used them as a pillow, went to sleep and had a dream. He dreamed he saw a ladder reaching from earth to heaven. This was not a ladder reaching from earth only part way to heaven; that would have been a mockery. That would have been inadequate-it was a ladder reaching all the way from earth to heaven. I submit that if hon. members of the government when framing this legislation had considered the dream of Jacob their reform measures would have been entirely different and would be adequate to meet existing conditions. Were that the fact the results of the reforms introduced would reach beyond this chamber and into the cottages of the men in distress and those people for whom the reform mea-

_____Long Adjournment-Mr. MacMillan (Mackenzie)
sures are being placed on our statute books.
At the outset may I say that the policies and platform of the Liberal party are always fresh and up to date. It is the only party in Canada to-day in a position to meet the requirements of the hour and the demands of the future. Even if elected, is the party in the corner of the chamber in a position to alleviate the existing distress? Is it in a position to place on the statute books of Canada legislation which would be sufficiently effective? I submit they are not in that position. In the year 1932 the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation came into existence. It had its birth in the city of Calgary in the last days of August, 1932. While in session over a period of two or three days they framed a platform, and I must say that for a period of time I had sympathy with that platform.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Shame.


John Angus MacMillan: Yes, I
had sympathy. I am sympathetic towards everything, but that does not mean that I will support everything. I am sympathetic towards the man who is lost spiritually, politically and otherwise. The platform of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation received a great deal of consideration and thought in western Canada. I know it did in that portion of Saskatchewan from which I come. The fundamental difference between the platform of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation as it originated in Calgary, and the platform of the Liberal party was the stand taken on the land policy, many parts of our platforms were in common, and it would be impossible to have conditions otherwise. The Liberal party has much in common with the Conservative party; that is inevitable. On land matters, however, platforms of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the Liberal party are not in common; in fact that was the fundamental difference between those two parties. It is not necessary for me to elaborate on their land policy, for every member of the house knows as much about it as I do. They were going to give assistance to people who were in debt; those people in return were to transfer their land to the government if the party attained office, and the owners were to become tenants. Now suppose such a thing were to happen that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation should come into office as the federal government of Canada and put their land policy into operation; what, effect would it have upon the people? The great Sir Wilfrid Laurier, whose name has gone down to imperishable renown, speaking in the city of Montreal fifty years 92582-164$
ago, said that property rights and property possession were the most sacred things belonging to the individual. But would it remain that way if this policy of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation were to become operative? I submit that it would not. To become a tenant I submit that a man would have to surrender entirely his spirit of independence. We are not unmindful of the sad and bitter experience of the first tenant known to us in history, that of the Adams' in the garden of Eden. Because of one single violation by one of the tenants of one of the covenants in the lease, the whole family was expelled from the garden. I sometimes think that there must have been a cooperative commonwealth federation group in existence at that time and that it was the leader of the group who found his way into the garden and beguiled the tenant.
If the policy of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation were carried out, we would lose all property rights. I have here an article which contains an extract from Morgan's Ancient History, as follows;
The idea of property was slowly formed in the human mind, remaining nascent and feeble through immense periods of time. Springing into life in savagery, it required all the experience of this period and the subsequent period of barbarism to develop the germ, and prepare the human brain for the acceptance of its controlling influence. Its dominance as a passion over all other passions marks the commencement of civilization. It not only led mankind to overcome the obstacles that delayed civilization, but to establish political society on the basis of territory and of property. A critical knowledge of the evolution of the idea of property would embody, in some respects, the most remarkable portion of the mental history of mankind.
Independently of the movement which culminated in the patriarchial family of the Hebrew and Latin types, property, as it increased in variety and amount, exercised a steady and constantly augmenting influence ir the direction of monogamy. It is impossible to overestimate the influence of property in the civilization of mankind.
The growth of the idea of property in the human mind commenced in feebleness and ended in becoming its master passion. Government and law's are instituted with primary reference to its creatioh, protection and enjoyment.
The growth of property is thus closely connected with the increase of inventions and discoveries, and with the improvement of social institutions which mark the several ethnical periods of human progress.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if that land plank in the platform of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party were to become operative in this country, before the present generation would pass away we would be reduced to the condition of the nomadic wanderers, upon the primeval plains.
2576	COMMONS
Long Adjournment-Mr. MacMillan (Mackenzie)
Strange and devious are the paths of history. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation had to pass through the fiery furnace of affliction, and during the year 1933, as I have already mentioned, they fought strongly in the constituency of Mackenzie. It was their best fighting ground, and they met with defeat. Then in the provincial elections in Saskatchewan on the nineteenth of June last they were practically put out of business, only five being elected out of fifty-five, and four of them by minority votes. They began to see that they were human like everybody else. They were very anxious to attain office.
Then what happened? At their convention held in the city of Regina in the year 1933 many of the farmers were opposed to nationalizing the land. The farmers were in favour of nationalizing the banks and every other enterprise except themselves. They expressed themselves very strongly in the matter, and I believe the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis),who was an active participant in that convention, lost his temper. I am only surmising that, but when I read the statement that he did make I cannot imagine that it would be made under any ' other conditions than that his mind was agitated and that he was not quite normal.
If the farmer wants a cooperative commonwealth in which everything is socialized but himself, he had better have a cooperative commonwealth of his own.
I would not make that statement unless I was somewhat agitated-offended. He went on to say:
If the farmer is anxious to benefit from the cooperative movement he will have to come half way.
I do not know what is meant by "half way," whether he meant that the farmer should allow half of his possessions to be nationalized and the other half not, but that was the statement of the hon. gentleman, and I admire him for the ground he took; he was sincere. He was espousing principles and policies in which he believed and he wanted to stand his ground. He had said:
If the farmer wants a cooperative commonwealth in wliioh everything is socialized but himself, he had better have a cooperative commonwealth of his own.
He was quite right. When fate was deciding against the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party, when they were losing all their elections, they had a convention in the city of Winnipeg last July, and I just want to show you, Mr. Speaker how the influence of that party has dwindled. At every convention they have a group photograph taken; it is the most important business of their convention. I have here the photograph that was taken of the group in the city of Regina. They sat there on July 10, 20 and 21, 1933. I do not know on which of these three days the photograph was taken, but it was the day on which they all looked their best. I have counted the number in the photograph and I find that there are 198, so altogether there must have been 199 persons in the group, because I know that the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) made it his boast in this house last session that he attended that conference. I cannot see his physiognomy in that group, and what happened I think was this; that when the photographer was adjusting his camera my hon. friend from Weyburn started talking about sound money and somebody sat on him. Mind you, there were 1,98 people present. Subsequently the party met in the city of Winnipeg on the seventeenth of July last. Of course they had their photograph taken there also, and would you believe it, Mr. Speaker, there are only eighteen in the group; the number had dwindled in one year from 198 to 18. Of course, we have to allow a certain latitude because the city of Regina is not very attractive compared with Winnipeg, and no doubt in Winnipeg some of them were out taking in the sights. But regardless of attractions in the city of Winnipeg the fact remains that in Regina in 1933 there were 198 present in the group and a year subsequently in Winnipeg there were only 18. Compare that with what took place in the Chateau Laurier on the twentieth of last month. On that evening nearly a thousand souls met to pledge their loyalty and devotion to the Liberal chief. It can easily be seen which party is in the best position to administer the affairs of this country and to satisfy all the electors. There is only one party, the Liberal party. I am not taking the present Conservative government into consideration at all because for the last two or three years the people have decided that they are out or will be out as soon as they have the opportunity to put them out.
I should like to return to a discussion of the human element to which I referred a short time ago. These people have a very human weakness, they are anxious to get into office. As I said before, the fundamental difference between the two parties is the land policy. What happened last year at Winnipeg? They came to the conclusion that they were pursuing the wrong policy and they

Long Adjournment-Mr. MacMillan (Mackenzie)
decided whether or not that policy was in the interests of the people, they would forsake it for the time being. They decided to drop their land policy. The provincial elections which were voted upon in Saskatchewan on June 19 were fought on a platform containing a land plank, which was the chief issue. What happened at the convention when the agricultural plank was presented? This convention was held in Winnipeg last July. Mr. Hyman, a non-voting member of the convention but a member of the provincial legislature, declared that the plank, in its drafted form, was the weakest in the platform. This is the plank they had previously considered as being the strongest. He pointed out in a powerful speech that enemies of the C.C.F. had so worked on the psychology of fear of the farmers by misrepresentation that farmers were afraid of the name. Farmers as a class resisted socialization the world over to a stronger degree than any other class. Yet they wanted to nationalize the farmer. Here is the excuse this man gave, according to this article:
The farmer's land was his most valuable possession and usually it was something he had wrested from nature and developed by the work of his own hands, and he did not want it taken away from him. The farmer feared what had happened in Russia. Mr. Hyman thought that the soviets action in dealing with agriculture had been its greatest mistake.
That was the opinion which Mr. Hyman advanced at this convention. However, the main thing to be considered by this house is the result. They all fell for this suggestion, even their leader, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). Be is one of the few men in Canada who I think would never veer from a policy he was pursuing once he thought it was right. However, on that particular occasion he fell and the results are accumulating upon him with astonishing .rapidity. This party is losing out in every part of Canada. The convention passed a new platform eliminating the land policy, and I shall say no more about what took place at that time.
Subsequently, on December 15, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was speaking in Reston, Manitoba. The people were not yet satisfied; they had grave doubts that if the C.C.F. party was returned to office they would nationalize the land. The hon. member is reported in the Winnipeg Free Press of December 15, as follows:
He advocated public ownership of all utilities such as water power, railways and banks, stating that the bad feature of the new centi'al bank is that it is privately controlled.
In that we agree. The article continues:
He stated the aim of the C.C.F. party is to bring about the kingdom of heaven on earth while we are living,-
I concede that, as many of the C.C.F. supporters are saying that this will be a long range program, that it will take many years to be brought into being, and it is quite likely that we will have to be bom again, that we will have to return to our kindred dust when we are reanimated from the tomb to find the C.C.F. at the helm of state. When questioned as to whether they would nationalize the farms, the hon. member said, "no." He made that very emphatic. I shall say no more about the C.C.F. and their platform, as I see that my time is rapidly passing and I am sure the clock, is right to the minute.
This group claims that they have no connection or association with the communist party of Canada, I believe that that statement is correct, ibut the fact remains that this Cooperative Commonwealth Federation is the best incubator that I know of for the hatching of communist ideas. What has taken place recently? The following appeared in the Western Producer of March 21:
Parties Agree on Joint Aims
To work together in a campaign of public meetings on three points, the Regina C.C.F. council and the communist party have come to an agreement.
This is the official organ of the C.C.F. for the province of Saskatchewan. The article continues:
The three aims for which the two organizations will direct their joint activities are:
1.	For the improvement of conditions of unemployed workers on relief.
2.	Against forced labour and disenfranchisement, or partial disenfranchisement, of workers, whether employed or unemployed.
3.	For non-contributory unemployment insurance.
The C.C.F. and the communist party are working hand in hand in connection with three issues. When the fox once gets his nose through the net, in a very short time his whole body is through. That is just what is happening. The communist party and the C.C.F. are working hand in hand on these things and in a very short time the, communist party will be in control. I give my hon. friends in the far comer this warning.
This party is preaching peace day in and day out. The other day we heard a very brilliant speech in this chamber by the hon. member for Laibelle (Mr. Bourassa). It is unfortunate that the hon. member is as old as he is, as I should like to see him one of those of whom it is said, "Millions now living will never die."
2578	COMMONS
Long Adjournment-Mr. MacMillan (Mackenzie)


Mr. BOURASSA:: That is too long.


John Angus MacMillan: A resolution was passed at this convention in Winnipeg in favour of peace. They said they were not going to send their sons across the Atlantic ocean to fight the battles of civilization. They said they were not going to participate in the battles of Europe regardless of what country might be involved, but listen to this report of what happened at the conference:
Willingness to leave Canada's shores to fight was expressed by E. Winch, British Columbia M.L.A., but he emphasized that it would be only to defend socialism against capitalism.
I believe the communists are getting the better of them; they are too easy going and I warn them to be careful. I would hate to see my bon. friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in the ranks of the communist party. I do not think he belongs there, as he looks more like one of those priests who used to adorn the ancient temple with the oil flowing down his beard rather than a meandering marauder with a scalping knife and a tomahawk concealed on his person. The article continues:
Everyone had a responsibility to fight when soviet Russia was threatened with attack by capitalist powers in his opinion.
That sentence is pregnant with admonition for every hon. member in this chamber. They did not repudiate that statement and there is nothing in the press to indicate that they did. If they had repudiated it I should have as much confidence in them now as I had when they came into existence in 1932.
The acting leader of the government is in the house and for his benefit and the benefit of his colleagues I will read a letter that appeared in the press a short time ago. I have a feeling that after I have read this letter the right hon. gentleman will put his hand over his intrepid heart and with all emphasis announce, "The recess is off; we will go on with the business of the house, sitting steadily until the proposed reform measures become law."
I quote the following:
Kitchener, Jan. 14.-The following business letter regarding a mortgage recently arrived at Waterloo from a southern Saskatchewan farmer:
"Received your notice calling for payment of $6,238.92. Some figures, this amount has grown from $4,000 in 1028, our last crop. This is certainly 6ome racket. I wish I could make money as fast. Your offer of giving $2 for every dollar paid on interest arrears is a step in the right direction, but of no avail, as we have bad no crop this year to pay anything, so you can put a few more figures on for next year; they look nice, anyway. You will soon have it u:p to $10,000 on paper and on paper it

will remain unless yo.u make a real adjustment of balance and give me a definite amount to pay, not one that grows by leaps and bounds like a baby elephant."
The writer said the original loan, -when assumed by him was $6,000. He said payments miade totalled $8,355.96, "and according to notice I still owe you more than I originally did. I may be dumb, but what I would like to know is, who the h- owns the place?
Many hundreds of farmers in western Canada could justifiably write letters of a similar nature. It is evident that an immediate move is urgent.
We all regret the absence of the Prime Minister from this chamber owing to illness. There is a pall hovering over the chamber and it is of as deep a hue on this side as on the other. We are all aware of the exceptional abilities of the Prime Minister; they are in evidence every day we see him at his desk. He works hard and we all recognize that his integrity is like a fixed star-the darker the night the brighter it shines. I might appropriately apply to the Prime Minister the words which Charles James Fox employed with reference to George Washington:
The breath of censure has not dared to impeach the purity of his conduct, nor the eye of envy to raise its malignant glance to the elevation of bis virtues.
We sincere!y hope that he will be back in this chamber in a very short time because, since his absence, the government has been like a rudderless vessel on an uncharted sea.
Now Watchman, what of the night? In a few more w7eeks we will be fighting the battle of democracy. We on this side of the house are of good cheer.


Mr. A. E. MUNN (Vancouver North):: I wish to support the amendment because, coming from the Pacific coast, I naturally object to the proposed adjournment; it is not convenient for the members from British Columbia. If there were to be the ordinary aidj oumment of two or three weeks we would not mind, but we object to an adjournment of five weeks. It takes almost a week to go and a week to return and that is too long a journey for the sake of three weeks at home. It is a hardship and I am opposed to the long adjournment.
Several members on the other side of the house have discussed the lumber situation more or less. A short time ago the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris) proposed a resolution in connection with the Ottawa agreements. In this house, during the session of 1932, I spoke opposing the treaties and I gave my reasons, from the point of view of a lumber man. I have been in the lumber

Long Adjournment-Mr. Munn
business all my life, and at that time I pointed out that we were making a mistake in connection with these agreements, because the lumber business in this country would be ruined. Let us see what our trade has been so far as lumber is concerned. In the nine years prior to 1932 we were importing from the United States, in round figures, $11,000,000 worth of lumber. That is just lumber, and does not include shingles or any of the products of wood. Most of that lumber was expensive hardwood for furniture, and our average of importations was $11,417,000 per annum. Those were our average imports for nine years. In the same period our exports of lumber to the United States averaged $40,665,000 per annum, so that we had an advantage of almost four to one.
In the 1932 session, on October 27, page 672 of Hansard, I gave figures showing our exports and imports, and at that time I went on record as being opposed to the Ottawa agreements for the reason that we were simply making trouble for ourselves and would lose a market that had been the backbone of the lumber business in Canada for all time. No one can deny that statement; it is absolutely true. I made that speech on October 27, 1932, and on November 15 I received a letter in which this statement appeared:
It seems to me this contains

"This" was a copy of the speech which I sent my correspondent, asking him for his criticism.
-more information pertinent to conditions in the lumber industry than anything yet stated in the dominion house.
In 1934 I went on record again as opposed to the agreement. On May 14 last I said:
Speaking in this chamber on October 26, 1932, I made the statement that in my opinion the lumber business in Canada would not get back to anything like normal conditions until we got back into the United States market. For years the Pacific coast states have been asking for a higher rate of duty or tax on Canadian lumber going into the United States, but until 1932 they could not get Washington to act. During 1931 and 1932 a very strong lobby movement was engineered by the Pacific coast states to raise the tariff or put a tax on Canadian lumber imports into that country, and finally the argument was advanced that through her imperial conference treaties Canada was raising her tariffs against the United States, through preferences granted to other countries. Let me quote some of the statements which were made in Washington in support of the proposed increase in the tariff or tax on Canadian lumber. The Pacific coast lobbyists made a very strong move for the imposition of extra tax, or duty, whichever you choose to call it. As evidence of the points I have made I shall read from the proceedings before the Senate finance committee on the Revenue Act of 1932.
Then I went on and quoted the evidence; it is here in Hansard of May 14, 1934, and it is not necessary to repeat it. I gave the names of the senators and others who testified before the committee in Washington. That was their argument all the way through, that British Columbia was getting a preference in the United Kingdom and at the same time was doing more business with the United States than with the United Kingdom.
Prior to the enactment of this tariff or excise tax and the granting of the ten per cent preference, there was a time when more lumber was shipped from Oregon and Washington to the United Kingdom than from British Columbia. Now of course with the ten per cent preference we have been able to get practically all the lumber business of the United Kingdom formerly held by Washington and Oregon, but in the meantime we have lost the United States market. I should like to give the figures. I am sorry the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) is not in his place, because I wish to show him how careless some of these statements are. I do not altogether blame these gentlemen; I think the information they get is often incorrect. For instance I have here some information that was supplied to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) from H. R. Macmillan, one of our biggest lumber exporters in British Columbia; the picture is simply misleading, but one cannot blame the Prime Minister. I do blame Mr. Macmillan, who is supposed to be a lumberman, although he is not a practical lumberman; he is a lumber dealer. Presumably the Minister of Railways got his information from the same source. He said, speaking in this house on March 27 last as reported in Hansard at page 2158:
Then in regard to lumber may I say that I have before me a report from the British Columbia Lumberman, the official journal of the British Columbia lumber industry. This report is dated January, 1935, only a couple of months ago and from it I intend to quote only one sentence. They say:
"The exports of British Columbia lumber in 1934 easily beat all previous years with a total of 860,(MX),00*0 feet board measure."
That included not only exports to the United Kingdom but all exports. It continues:
"Note how gains in empire trade have more than compensated' for the loss of the United States waterborne trade. More lumber was exported to the United Kingdom alone last year than was ever shipped by water to the United States of America in any twelve monthly period."
Now, Mr. Speaker, any lumberman or any boy who knows anything about lumber knows that practically all our shipments to the United States go by rail. What, lumber would eo


Mr. MURPHY:: I beg the hon. member's
pardon; I heard every word he said.


Albert Edward Munn: I am very glad the minister
was interested enough to listen, because I know whereof I speak. There is an IndiaD

Long Adjournment-Mr. Munn
reservation at Pemberton. Those Indians have a very fine tract of land; all they need is a little encouragement and cooperation, but the agent very seldom goes there himself. He sends some understrapper who lords it over these poor fellows so they get no satisfaction whatever. This is a serious matter and I think something should be done to straighten it out, perhaps not in connection with the Indian department itself but in connection with the treatment of the Indians. They are entitled to fair, human treatment which they are not getting so far as my riding is concerned. Close to Vancouver we have what is known as the Squamish valley, in connection with which I have had considerable correspondence with the department, since there is quite a large Indian reserve there. I wrote the minister from Vancouver on July 25 last. I am sorry to have to put this on Hansard, but really there is only one way to do business and that is along business lines. I wrote as follows:
For your information I am enclosing a reference to the Squamish river published in the Vancouver Daily Province on the 25th instant.
I happened to he at Squamish a few days ago and went to the trouble of looking over the flood situation at that point and I have come to this conclusion, that your Indian agent is neglecting his duty. There is a lot of land in the Squamish Indian reserve being washed away, and in order to correct the situation it would only cost possibly at the outside $1,000.
Unless something is done to protect the river bank there is liable to be serious damage and my private opinion is that you should instruct your agent in charge of that reserve that you have a report with a view to protecting not only the Indian reserve land but the other lands tributary. This is really serious and should have prompt attention.
The minister acknowledged receipt of my letter on July 31, saying he had asked for a report. Then I heard nothing further until February of this year, when I wrote the minister as follows:
In July, 1934, I wrote you from Vancouver pointing out a very serious flood situation at the above mentioned river in British Columbia. At that time you acknowledged receipt of my letter and stated that you woulld have the Indian agent secure a report for you and when
it was received you would unite me again. To date I have heard no further word from you.
At that time I did not get my information in regard to conditions sitting in an arm chair in some sort of office or at some hotel. I put on old clothes and a pair of rubber boots and walked miles to personally acquaint myself with conditions and decide what should be done. I have been associated with woods operations in connection with lumber all my life, and naturally have had some experience in the handling of water in rivers.
I may say that one poor fellow lost his land and his house, and when I was there last July all he had left was the garden gate and a little piece of fence in front of his farm. To-day there is a very serious situation at that point; the property not only of the Indians but of other persons as well is being washed away, and the river is running wild. One poor fellow sends me a letter in which he complains that his fruit trees and even his poor old horse and buggy have been washed down stream. No one paid any attention; no one tried to help him out. There is a real danger at that point, where there are two rivers and the soil is very light. There is a town of perhaps five hundred people at that point, and there is danger that some day that river will take the whole town into the ocean. A very small expenditure for river bank protection would remove any possibility of danger of that kind. I do not entirely blame the Indian department, but in cooperation with the provincial government and the Pacific Great Eastern railway I believe they should do something to protect both the Indians and the white people living in the Squamish valley.
I do not want to take up too much time, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to say a word with regard to tarifis. We have heard a good deal with regard to high tariffs and low tariffs. It is no wonder that we in the west are against high tariffs because we suffer and pay because of them. I have a statement here which appeared in the Financial Post of September 1, 1934, showing the net cost and the net loss or gain from the tariff, as follows:
Benefit from	Cost of	Net lose or	Net L or G	tariff	tariff	gain	per capita	$	?	$	$Prince Edward Island.. . .	.. . . 467,992	2.042,150	L	1,574,158	L	17.88.. . . 9,488,493	15,784,123	L	6.296,631	L	12.28.. . . 8.126,059	12.891,077	L	4,765,118	L	11.67.. .. 132.867,447	101.171.562	G	31,695,885	G	11.03.. .. 220,722,484	168,732.723	G	51,989,761	G	15.15. . .. 19,910,971	29.185.740	L	9,274,769	L	13.25Saskatchewan	. . . 3,274,950	29.228,285	L	25.952.335	L	28.16.. .. 8,211,148	27,909,396	L	19,698,249	L	26.93British Columbia	.. .. 22,378,571	37,737,247	L	15,358,676	L	22.33425.448.115	424.880.384	
Long Adjournment-Mr. McKenzie
I shall not take up further the time of the house.
Now that the Prime Minister is on the way to recovery I sincerely trust his improvement will continue, that he will be able to attend the jubilee celebrations and return in fit physical condition to continue with the business of the house. Before taking my seat I would urge that instead of asking for an adjournment of five weeks the time be shortened to three weeks; surely that would be sufficient. Three weeks' time should be long enough, and at the end of that time we could proceed with the remainder of the work of the session and then return to our homes where we could do some real work.


Mr. ROBERT McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: 
Mr. CAHAN:: Would the hon. member
permit me to make a statement? The preparation of his return entails the searching of many documents. Many other returns are equally voluminous. All I can say is that we have not the assistants necessary to prepare all these voluminous returns in a week or ten days.


Robert McKenzie: If it is so
voluminous, that is all the more reason the government should resign, and not drive us into bankruptcy by employing so many additional employees at salaries of $5,000 or over.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is not a fair criticism.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In order to obtain the information required, a search of fifty or sixty thousand names is necessary.


Robert McKenzie: You had
five weeks to do it, and yet to-day you say it cannot be presented for some time.
Just while I am on that question of salaries, permit me to say that speaking in this house on February 26 last I made mention of the question of salaries and pensions. One of the local papers in the city of Ottawa rather took exception to what I stated then, and attempted to show that I was talking about the civil service superannuation fund. I made no reference whatever, Mr. Speaker, to the superannuation fund, and I do not think we need raise any objection to that because the civil servants pay for their superannuation themselves, and they are entitled to it. Nor did I make any reference to soldiers' pensions. But I did refer to certain other pensions, and I would ask the members of the government to turn to page 22 of the estimates of this year and state whether or not they think that the list of pensions provided in the bottom half of page 22 and on all of page 23, amounting to something over $300,000 a year in payment of pensions to exjudges, is really justified under conditions as they exist in Canada at the present time. The number increases year by year. These pensions run, very many of them, from five, six and seven thousand dollars to as much as twelve thousand dollars a year. I do object to pensions of that kind, and that is what I was referring to. These judges do not pay one dollar while in office to help pay for the pensions which they draw.
There is another thing. This government employs officials, such as the members of the tariff board, at exorbitant salaries, and after they have served a certain number of years they draw pension equal to half of their salary. One of my colleagues mentioned last night the salaries paid to the men in charge of the Bank of Canada. The governor of that bank I believe draws a salary of $30,000, his assistant $20,000, and another assistant $10,000, while the men who do the work are probably drawing from $1,200 to $3,000. That is the thing I object to, and I say that sooner or later this country must come to grips with that problem. This country cannot afford to go on paying pensions at exorbitant rates without receiving something by way of compensation for the donors. It will have to stop.
It is unfair in another respect. In the constituency that I represent in this house there are some ten or twelve lawyers living in the little towns and villages, maintaining an office and employing probably at least one stenographer at least a part of the time, paying their taxes, and doing their duty to the community as they should. Those men, in spite of the fact that they are maintaining an office and giving part time employment at least to one employee, would be pleased indeed if they thought they had $100 a month to themselves. I believe there are plenty who do not make that. Then why in the name of heaven should we pay a pension five or six times the amount that these men could earn if they were out in private practice, and give it to them for nothing whatever? It seems to me that if the country were seized of what is going on in that respect they would not stand for it any longer. I intend as long as I can to raise my voice in this house in protest against these pensions.
I do not think that the members of our tariff board, who are engaged at enormous salaries, the chairman at $15,000, and the other two members of the board at $10,000 each- they have nothing to do; they are afraid to

Long Adjournment-Mr. McKenzie
do anything; the only one judgment they handed down that would be of any benefit was appealed by the government and the decision of the board reversed, so they are there for nothing-I do not think they should, after they have served a few years, draw half their salary by way of pension without paying anything towards any pension fund. A few years ago a Liberal government established an annuities branch in the city of Ottawa, and I believe it is a very fine thing. It seems to me that these men who are drawing such enormous salaries should be able to buy their own pensions. By the payment of a few dollars they could provide a pension for themselves, and surely a man who is drawing from eight to thirty thousand dollars a year should be able to pay a few dollars into a pension fund in order to be able to provide a pension for himself.
It is also very unfair to the people who are paying the taxes of this country. I come from a part of the country where there is real hardship. I had a letter today from a lady in one of the towns of my constituency, who said that through the past winter she was drawing $9.50 a month for some work she was doing, taking care of a building in the town, and with that $9.50 a month she kept five of a family off relief. Now when people are existing under such conditions as these, why should they be called upon to pay a cent a pound on all the sugar they consume? Why should they have to pay these high taxes on tea and other necessaries in order to provide pensions of five and six and eight and ten thousand dollars a year to men who neither paid for not earned them? I say that it is very unfair indeed. This government of course will say: Oh, well, that has been going on for years, and it is not only this government that is doing it but other governments have done it as well. I realize that that is true, but conditions at the present time are such that we must not continue to do it any longer.
During the recent budget debate, supporters of the government in their speeches endeavoured in the first place to lay the blame for the loss of trade since 1930 on the previous government. Let us see to what extent that is true. I have here a statement of the trade of Canada with all countries by fiscal years, and I find that in the year 1930 our imports amounted to $1,248,273,000, and our exports in the same year amounted to $1,144,938,000. In 1934 our imports had fallen to $433,776,000, and our exports had fallen to $585,680,000.

When this government came into power our total trade was almost two and a half billion dollars. Now it has fallen below one billion dollars, but this government will try to prove that business had fallen off before they came into power.
Another thing which this government always stresses is that there was a favourable balance of trade of some $115,000,000 during the past year. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think possibly one of the reasons why our imports have fallen down to $433,776,000 is because of the action which this government took in raising the tariff as they did, which prevented goods from entering this country in the first place; and a second reason for the fall in imports is that our working men and our farmers have no income with which to buy the goods even if they were imported. That is why imports fell off to the extent they did. A favourable balance of trade does not mean very much. I would rather have the volume of trade as it was in 1930.
Certain hon. members have made the statement from time to time that Canada has come through the depression better than other countries. I would like that to be true, but when we consider how business has fallen away during the last five years, how revenues have decreased, how debts have increased and how everything possible to be taxed is taxed, how can we say that this country has come through the depression? A week or so ago there appeared in Ottawa a delegation of mayors from cities all the way from Halifax to Vancouver. I should like to repeat some of the statements made at their meetings, which I think are conclusive proof that we are far from being through this depression. It was stated that unemployment relief constitutes a national emergency. It was said that the municipalities are facing bankruptcy and that the country was in the direst distress. These mayors are close to the people and these are some of the expressions which were made at their meetings. They claimed that the depression is not less than it was, it is greater. For the first time the actual facts are now available to hon. me.me,rs. We were told that there would be no want in Canada, but there is want. These men were talking about the conditions in the cities, but how much worse it must be in the rural areas.
I do not think the government of the day has kept its finger upon the pulse of public opinion, especially when such statements as these are made. If this government puts its program into effect and appoints many more boards we will be into bankruptcy much sooner than anticipated.

Long Adjournment-Mr. McKenzie
What does the government expect that people who have not worked eight hours in any day for the last four or five years will think of legislation for an eight hour day or forty-eight- hour week? This matter took up considerable time a few weeks ago, but in my opinion the time is not opportune for such legislation. It might be all right if things were normal, but they are not. Wha-t does a man who has no work care about minimum . wages or maximum hours? All he wants is some work and he is not particular as to the number of hours. I do not think there is much need of this legislation at the present time. I expressed my opinion -of the unemployment insurance measure when it was before the house earlier in the session. I do not think the government- expects that this legislation will be ever put into force, and it will be a good thing for the country if it is not. The Prime Minister has told us that the cost will be between $6,500,000 and $7,000,000 per year.
One measure was passed by this house which I believe will prove to be of some benefit to the community I represent. I refer to the amendments to the Canadian Farm Loan Act. What is going to happen to this legislation? It passed this house over a month ago but it has not passed the senate. Is this house to adjourn for five or six weeks without this legislation receiving royal assent? I receive letters almost every day asking for information in connection with this act. People want to know when they will be able to get money under the provisions of this measure, but I have to tell them that for some reason this bill has not passed through the senate. Perhaps the government could throw some light on the rumour going about to the effect that there is .to be no money made available for the dried out areas of southern Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba.
The government has given as a reason for a five or six week's adjournment that they must prepare legislation made necessary by the report of the price spreads commission. I contend that the government knows at this minute-if it does not know it can find out by inquiring from any daily newspaper in the country-what the legislation is going to be. It is intended that four or five boards will be appointed, and that is all that is to be done. Why not go ahead with the appointment of these boards and let us finish the work of the session and go home to hold an election? That is what the people want.
In conclusion I should like to put on record the particulars in connection with some tariff items which are of considerable concern to
the farming communities of this country. 1 should like to show what has been done in the way of increases in the tariff on agricultural implements. This is a very perplexing question and it will become more so as the years go by. If we have a few crops in the west we will be needing new machinery. Very little machinery has been bought during the last few years and the people have not felt the effect of these higher tariffs on agricultural implements. Some hon. members opposite, particularly those from western Canada, endeavoured to show that there is no difference between the two parties when it comes to tariff matters.
The following table shows the duty which prevailed in 1930 against different agricultural implements and that which was put into force by the present government:
1930-35
Article-	Per cent Per cent
Mowers, binders, reapers,
combines	
Cultivators, harrows, seed
drills, et cetera	
Field growers, fodder and
feed cutters	
Hay loaders, tedders, grain crushers, post hole diggers, et cetera ..	..
Incubator brooders..	..
Threshing machine separators, fanning mills, farm wagons, sleds. . ..
Barbed wore	free
Cream separators.. ..
Windmills	 174
6	25
n	25
10	25
10	25
10	25
10	25
free	10
free	25
174	25
There are several other items I could mention but these are the ones in which the farmers are particularly concerned. I think this government should consider reducing these items before the farmers will be requiring new machineiry. This could be done after we come back from the Easter recess, provided the government still insists on the long recess.
I think this government should also do something about the pensions being paid and for which no contribution is made by the persons receiving them. That is a very sore spot, and I think it is a good thing for governments that the people of the country generally do not know how much is being paid out in this way. It is simply ridiculous and I hope the government will see their way clear to do something about it.
For these reasons I am opposed to a long adjournment. I do not think there is any necessity for a long adjournment to prepare the legislation that will come out of the price spreads investigation. The government must be pretty well assured of what it will do in that regard, and there is little else to detain us here. I submit that we should

Long Adjournment-Mr. Gagnon
adjourn for not more than two weeks and come back so that we may conclude the business of the session and allow the people to decide who shall govern the country for the next five years.


Mr. ONESIME GAGNON (Dorchester):: We have just listened to the twentydirst speech made by hon. gentlemen opposite on this great question of national importance as to whether we ought to adjourn for three or four weeks instead of one or two. Everyone understands that a motion of the kind that has been proposed, which is tantamount to a motion of non-confidence, cannot be moved unless the member who wishes to exercise the immemorial right of putting forward grievances before supply has some question of national importance which he intends to discuss. What is that question? I gave a summary of it a moment ago when I said that the only question at issue was whether or not it was wise or advisable to adjourn the house for four weeks instead of two weeks. But this is not the real grievance; it is rather an imaginary one, because there is no motion before the house for adjournment. It is true that the acting leader of the government (Sir George Perley) a few days ago stated that in a week or so a minister of the crown might move for an adjournment, but that motion has not yet been made; therefore I humbly submit that the whole discussion is based on a wrong principle and the procedure is unsound. However, we are living in a world of surprises and we must not be too scrupulous in regard to the procedure to be followed.
We remember that a week ago the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) asked leave of the house to discuss a question which was really a matter of great national importance-the menace of war which is beclouding every issue in Europe, and the probability of Canada becoming entangled in a European conflict. The house was ready to hear the hon. gentleman and everyone agreed unanimously to the principle of his motion. But if we carefully examine each of the twenty-one speeches that have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite we find that the grievances they urge are rather curious. I have made a note of some of the speeches delivered by hon. gentlemen opposite and I observe for instance that my hon. friend from Belle-chasse (Mr. Boulanger) discussed for about twenty minutes the great qualities of the secretary of the commission that investigated mass buying and price spreads, Mr. Pearson. Surely my hon. friend would not contend that this is a grievance. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) discussed the question of by-elections, and like his 
colleague the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) he boasted that the opposition had feathers in its cap from two byelections. Surely this is not a grievance which must be urged before supply. We have heard also the hon. member for Frontenac-Adding-ton (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. member for North York (Mr. Mulock), who spoke with eloquence and talent with regard to by-elections, enumerating the number of Conservative gentlemen who had spoken in the ridings they represent. Surely that is not a grievance to be urged before supply. All these speeches were made on the same line, but they are not real grievances of such a kind that we must stop voting the money that is needed for administration. These speeches are merely a litany of hotchpotch arguments of no serious importance. I wTould aslc hon. gentlemen opposite to meditate on a certain article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on July 28, 1933, in which the eminent journalist who wrote this article said:
Nothing has been more pathetic in Canada in Canadian politics since 1930 than the failure of Liberals in parliament to advance any effective alternative to the government's policy.
We can understand why hon. gentlemen make their budget speeches in this roundabout way. Yesterday the hon. member for Quebec East said that the Liberals this year had spoken only one hour and twenty minutes on the budget, and he was right in that statement. The budget was so good that the Liberals, who are prone to criticize anything coming from this side of the house, deemed it wise to discuss it only one hour and twenty minutes, but now they regret that decision and have made twenty-one speeches on the question noiw under consideration-speeches which are absolutely out of order but which suit their purposes.
I quote again from the editorial of the Ottawa Citizen of July 28, 1933:
The self-satisfied ignorance of Liberals on other issues than tariff in world politics, as on the collapse of international finance, the progressive departure of nations from the gold standard, the revolutionary experience in national planning, particularly in Russia and the United States of America, has come more to turn young people from the Liberal party into the lines of the C.C.F. than anything else.
Hon. gentlemen all conclude their speeches by praying that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) may be restored to. health so that he may come back to the house. Are they sincere, when their friends and lieutenants out of the house say that the right hon. gentleman is so ill that he will never come back? But since they are so well disposed to hear compliments about my leader may

Long Adjournment-Mr. Gagnon
I quote what the Ottawa Citizen said on May 20, 1933?
However strongly an opponent may disagree with Premier Bennett on vital issues of policy -and there has been no fundamental challenge to the government this session on national policy-no one can fairly charge that personal ambition has been an actuating motive. It would rather be fair to acknowledge that Premier Bennett has retained the confidence of the Canadian people, under the devastating collapse of almost everything else in politics during the last three years, largely because he has demonstrated beyond dispute that he is prepared to sacrifice himself to Canada. No public man-
This is what the Ottawa Citizen says-a very important Liberal paper.
-has shown greater courage in adversity; no political leader has shown himself more ready to put national interests above party or personal interests.
May I humbly urge my good friend from Charlevoix^Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain), who has to do with publicity for the Liberal party, to publish some extracts from that article that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen.
Now when we analyze the speeches of our hon. friends opposite we are surprised at their arguments. Of course I am not presumptuous enough to profess to be able to analyze everything they said, but there are a few observations I should like to make, especially with regard to the speech made by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Gi-rouard) this afternoon. He dwelt mainly on a petition which was circulated in the rural districts, which had something to do with setting the price of butter, eggs and other agricultural products. This petition dealt also with the advisability of voting a premium on the export of butter, eggs, cheese and similar commodities. I should like to show that hon. gentlemen opposite have not always been unanimous on the question of bonusing rural products and even paying a premium on their export. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that in 1932 a very interesting debate took place in this house on a motion proposed by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Ger-shaw). He moved a resolution on the sugar1 beet industry, as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should in cooperation with the sugar factories encourage in every reasonable way the use of sugar made from home grown raw material.
And the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Stewart), who as you know is an expert on the sugar beet industry, added an amendment asking the house to refer that motion to the committee on agriculture. I had the honour of speaking to that motion, and I profited
by the opportunity to draw the attention of the house to the very important industry which flourishes in the province of Quebec, the maple sugar industry. I suggested that the hon. member for Medicine Hat should add to his motion the following words:
and encourage the production and extension of the maple sugar industry in Canada.
What was the stand taken on that by hon. gentlemen opposite? Only two spoke on it, the former member for West Elgin, now the Premier of Ontario, Mr. Hepburn, and the hon member for Prince (Mr. MacLean). Mr. Hepburn was a strong opponent of bonusing the sugar beet industry, and the present Deputy Speaker of the house (Mr. Morand) interrupted and asked him the following question :
Mr. Morand: After listening to the hon. gentleman's speech I would ask him: Is he in favour of helping the sugar industry?
Mr. Hepburn:	I am opposing the motion
and the amendment thereto, absolutely.
The hon. member for Prince was also emphatic in his opposition to the policy of bonusing rural products. What has taken place since? In my remarks on that occasion I urged the government to do something for the maple sugar industry, and you may be surprised to learn that Le Soleil, the great Liberal organ of Quebec, attacked me for having dared to move in the house that some bonus be given to the maple sugar industry. I have here an extract from what was published in that paper on Monday, October 28, 1932. I shall read the article in French and translate it afterwards:
Des que les Americains vont entendre parler de eela, ils vont remonter leur barif au niveau ou il etait avant que M. Vaillancourt nous ob-tienne les concessions qu'il nous obtenait l'an dernier. C'est d'ai'lleurs le resultat qu'on ob-tient avec tous ces bonis du Gouvernement. Les aeheteurs etrangers en prennent occasion pour augmenter leur tarif centre nos produits. Le resultat est done au desavantage des cultiva-teurs.
I should like to add a few words to explain the argument made by the writer of that article. The article said that Mr. Gagnon, the member for Dorchester in the House of Commons, and other members, have recommended that a bonus be given to the sugar beet industry or the maple sugar industry. Le Soleil said:	This principle is wrong,
because Mr. Vaillancourt; who in Quebec is the head of the cooperative maple sugar producers, has met with serious obstacles in the United States because it was shown before the American congress that the Quebec government was helping the sugar industry, and when the Americans knew that, they raised

Long Adjournment-Mr. Gagnon
their tariff on sugar; therefore, the writer added, Mr. Vaillancourt was obliged to go to the United States and make representations to show that the farmers ought to be helped. This is why the writer in Le Soleil added the words I have just quoted a moment ago, and which I am going to translate into English:
As soon as the Americans hear about that they will raise their tariff to the level where it was when Mr. Vaillancourt obtained the concessions which he secured last year. Futher-more it is the usual result that we get when with all these subsidies supplied by the government to purchasers from abroad the producers from abroad take advantage of that to raise their tariffs against our products. Therefore it follows that the result is disastrous to the farmers.
I was blamed, and hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house were blamed by Le Soleil, the Liberal organ of Quebec, because we had advocated the giving of a bonus to the maple sugar industry. But now the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska is having petitions circulated in our counties asking this government to give a bonus on butter, cheese and eggs. When I received that petition I was rather curious to find out if the great union of farmers of Quebec, which has more than ten thousand members, had approved of that step, so I wrote to the secretary and I shall read to you the letter which I received:
L'Union catholique des cultivateurs de la province de Quebec, Inc.
Head office and general secretary's office: 5505 St. Lawrence Boulevard
Montreal, February 19, 1935. Mr. Onesime Gagnon,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir:
I made an inquiry about the petition you are mentioning in your letter. Some farmers had started preparing a petition to be sent to Mr. Taschereau. Mr. Wilfrid Girouard, member for Drummond-Arthabaska, told them: You should rather send a petition to Mr. Bennett requesting him to raise the price of farm products. He gave $15 out of his own pocket or from the party fund's to pay for the printing of that petition. The U.C.C. has nothing to do with it. We know that the price of butter and specially the price of cheese depends on the world market which in turn depends on supply and demand.
The best method to secure a fair return for farm products would be to organize their marketing through the Marketing Board. But the very people who are asking Mr. Bennett to fix the price of farm products on the world market refuse to avail themselves of the Marketing Board.
Believe me, hon. Sir,
Yours very truly,
Albert Rioux,
President.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this gentleman is right. He says that the farmers of Quebec ought to take advantage of the Natural Products Marketing Act which was passed by this government last year. Everyone in this house and in Quebec knows that at first Mr. Taschereau was opposed to the marketing act but the pressure of public opinion was so strong that a few days ago we heard that Mr. Godbout, the provincial minister of agriculture, had consented that the producers of potatoes in Quebec should come under the eastern potato marketing scheme. I have here a letter which was sent to me by Mr. L. S. Burrows, the chairman of the eastern Canada potato marketing scheme. I think it is worth while to put it on Hansard:
Following your request for information regarding the comparative prices being paid for potatoes to the farmers in the area under the regulation of this board, that is Ontario, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, on January 31, 1935, and February 28, 1935, I wired to our various offices and secured the following information:
Ontario-
(Per 90-lb. bag)	Jan, 31	Feb. 28Orangeville. . ..	. . 17c.	35c.-40c.Alliston	. . 15c.	35c.Uxbridge	.. 15c.-17c.	35c.-40e.New Brunswick- (Per 165 lbs.) Woodstock.. ..	.. 17c.-20c.	40c.Har bland	. . 17c.-20c.	45c.Perth	. . 17c.-20c.	35c .-40 c.Grand Fa Ids. . . .	.. 17c.-20c.	40e.-45c.
Prince Edward Island- (Per bushel)
Four largest dealers
report paying.. ..	8c.-10c.	13c.-14e.
Nova Scotia-		
Barrels for export (in-		
eluding the barrels)	75c.	$1 0090-lb bags	22c.	30 c.
Mr. Burrows adds:
The eastern Canada potato marketing board while authorized on January 18, 1935, did not begin active operation until February 1st. I think you will agree directly due to the operations of this board the price which the farmer is receiving for his potatoes is showing a very strong increase.
I am also glad to advise you that the movement has remained normal in spite of the materially increased price.
These figures show in a very convincing manner that the farmers of the province of Quebec ought to follow the example of the farmers of other provinces and enjoy the benefits of the provisions of the marketing act. I think the provincial minister of agriculture was well advised to encourage this eastern Canada potato marketing board. I heard today also that the jam manufacturers of Quebec have decided to join the producers in Ontario and come under the provisions of the market-

__________Long Adjournment-Mr. Gagnon
ing act. If the butter and egg producers decide to do likewise, they will certainly derive great benefits which will be extremely advantageous to them.
Before taking my seat I should like to d'well for a moment on a subject raised by my hon. friend from Quebec East. As one of the subjects which he thought should be discussed before going into committee, he raised the famous question of decorations, honours and titles in Canada. I was really amazed to hear the hon. gentleman raise that' question a second time, because everyone knows that in the province of Quebec there is an annual shower of decorations on the members of the Liberal party. Therefore, I am at a loss to understand why my hon. friend from Quebec East, who is one of the leaders of his party, should be scandalized if the King of England deems it wise to grant decorations to English speaking people in Canada. In the province of Quebec almost every Liberal provincial minister and deputy minister has received decorations from the republic of France, the King of Belgium and His Holiness the Pope. I have no objection to that; on the contrary, I am very happy that hon. gentlemen opposite may have done something to entitle them to decorations, but I would ask them to be more consistent and not to vote against decorations in this house while they are pleased to have their friends in Quebec benefit by this shower of decorations to which I referred a moment ago.
The hon. member referred to the Nickle resolution of 1918 with respect to titles. It is true that the hon. member for Quebec East supported that resolution, but every child who has begun the study of constitutional law recognizes that a mere resolution voted by only one house cannot bind parliament. This resolution never received the support of the Senate or the governor general, and, therefore, it never bound parliament. But why did my hon. friend support the Nickle resolution while at the same time he approved of that shower of decorations falling from the republic of France on the provincial ministers of Quebec, and even on some hon. gentlemen who sit on the other side of this house? I may say frankly that when the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) moved a resolution against titles, I was scandalized to see the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) rise in his place and vote against honours and decorations in this country. That hon. gentleman wears in his buttonhole the rosette of the Legion of Honour, which has been awarded to him, quite properly, by the republic of France. Why should he vote
against decorations? Why should he seek to prevent Englishmen from receiving decorations from the King of England when hon. gentlemen opposite are so alluring to the government of France that they receive decorations by the tens and hundreds in a year?
The hon. member for Quebec East said that the practice of giving decorations was obnoxious and abhorrent to the people of Canada. I was surprised to learn that this practice was abhorrent to the Premier of Quebec, who has received at least five or six decorations from foreign countries and who, just this year, received the Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour, for which I am pleased to congratulate him. Just to show how easy it is for gentlemen to get decorations in Quebec, there is a Liberal chief in that province who is a bailiff of the superior court. He has received five decorations, one from the King of Belgium, one from the republic of Argentina, of which he has been consul, one from the republic of France, one from His Holiness the Pope and one from the King of Montenegro, because several years ago he was consul for that country also. When hon. gentlemen opposite are so enraptured with these much coveted decorations why should they object to gentlemen in other provinces receiving decorations which are merely a recognition of the services they have rendered their king and country? I think hon. members opposite from the province of Quebec ought to be ashamed of themselves for being so inconsistent in regard to this question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Onésime Gagnon: They will probably ask
for a decoration for keeping order in the house.
The hon. member for Quebec East has also proposed that a referendum should be taken on this question of titles. If we are to have a referendum on every secondary question that may be raised, where should we stop? Why should we not have a referendum on the advisability of removing the tax on liquor or on the advisability of awarding the title of king's counsel? Where should we stop? Why should not hon. members opposite move for a referendum asking the people what they think of the policy initiated by Mr. Hepburn within the last few days which will cause the bondholders of the province of Quebec to lose $40,000,000, according to what Mr. Taschereau said at Quebec just last week? Hon. gentlemen opposite ought not to be so insistent on referendums. By breaking the pledges they made in 1919; by their utter



Long Adjournment-Mr. Rinjret
disregard of principles; by their obnoxious and unscrupulous methods; by their utter disregard of ethics and conventions they have corrupted the wells of public opinion.
In concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, because I understand that a vote is to be taken in a few moments, may I say that I am not afraid to place, myself on record as being in favour of decorations. That is not because I expect to get one; in the province of Quebec no Conservative would dare hope for a decoration of this kind, but I am in favour of the principle. I think if bon. gentlemen opposite are so keen on receiving decorations from foreign countries they should not try to prevent Conservatives or even Liberals in other provinces from receiving decorations from their king. The motion of the hon. member for Quebec East is not serious; it is not declarative of any principle ; it is merely a motion to delay the work of this house, and therefore I will vote against it.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Mr. Speaker, before taking the vote I should like to say only a few words on the debate generally and to refer briefly to some of the remarks we have just heard. The first observation of the hon. member who immediately preceded me (Mr. *Gagnon) was to the effect that we have not a real grievance, that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) did not express a grievance and therefore should not have been moved. I will say that if we were dealing with a motion for adjournment the objection taken by the hon. member might have some weight. May I point out, however, that the real grievance lies not so much in the proposal of the government to adjourn the house for an extended period as in the fact that the adjournment is merely adding to a sequence of political acts through which this government month after month has been delaying what the public has demanded, namely a general election.
If the government had followed tradition the results would have been suicidal, I admit, but we would have had elections last fall. But instead of having the elections, the government, realizing it did not have a ghost of a chance to survive public opinion, made an heroic but futile effort to divert the attention of the Canadian electors to the program of reform that came into existence with the new year and was diffused throughout the country through the medium of radio speeches. Instead of appealing to the country on its record of four and a half years, a procedure which would have been

according to tradition, we were confronted with a new program backed by practically a new government. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) put it at the time, we were to become the .Conservative party and they were the new Liberal party with the new program of reform.
Parliament met, and it was quite evident that had we opposed the reform program we would have been branded immediately as a reactionary party and one opposed to all progress. Immediately upon the commencement of the session we did everything by omission and commission to assist the government in putting through the reform program as quickly as possible. However we were confronted with delays-this bill would not be ready; that bill would not be ready; that resolution was not ready; this resolution was not ready; that minister was not feeling well on a particular day and would not be able to introduce his measure; this minister was not feeling well, and so on- and from week to week we have been waiting. Then came the budget, when we witnessed the extraordinary performance of a government and its supporters day after day obstructing their own budget. That, Mr. Speaker, is our grievance.
Now that we are willing to put through additional reforms, if there are any-not because we think they are so very good, but just to make sure that this government is forced to the country on its record and not on a program newly adopted at the last moment-we are met with another proposal. Not only are we not to go on with the reforms, and not only are we to be given the opportunity not to oppose them, if I may put it that way, but we are going to adjourn for six weeks. That is the grievance, Mr. Speaker. This proposal is part of the sequence of political acts whereby the government have postponed a general election, notwithstanding the fact that throughout the country there has been a general demand for it. They have delayed the elections to suit their own convenience and their own comfort, and to prolong for a few months the pleasure they have in holding office when nobody wants them there but themselves. They hold office without the least regard for public opinion or for the rights of the people. That is our grievance.
We want to be here to discuss whatever the government may have to offer as ante mortem testimony, and then we desire to proceed to a general election. We may win or we may lose-X think we will win.


Alfred Duranleau: You will lose.

___________Long Adjournment-Mr. Rinjret


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The country wants a new government, a stable government. It does not want a moribund government hanging to power by the tips of its fingers. It does not want a government which, had it paid the least attention to the desire of the people as expressed in by-elections, would not now be in office.
Many references have been made to the byelections. The statement has been made that if we take the whole record of the five years the government has held power, it has lost only one or two seats. I have not taken the trouble to ascertain whether or not that statement is correct. But this I do know: You must not go back to the by-elections held about five years ago if you wish to obtain accurate information. It is only natural that when a government has just been elected the first by-election will turn in its favour. This government in that respect has been treated as other governments have been treated. They won an election in Three Rivers about a year after they had been in power. On the strength of the promises made during the general campaign and repeated in the by-election campaigns they won a few by-elections in the first years in which they held office. But let us look back at the last two years. What do we find? They lost three by-elections in 1933; they lost four out of five in 1934, and they have only a little Church left-and we are not even sure it is perfectly orthodox.


Mr. DUGUAY:: The hon. member did not have-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I do not know what my hon. friend has to say, but I would invite him to go to his electors and say it there.


Joseph Léonard Duguay: I am ready to go at any time.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: To sum it up, this government has been dead for a number of months. Not only is it dead, but there are no relatives left to fix the date of the funeral. We have to wait for the constitution to do that. When we asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) the position of the constitution in the matter of elections he said, " Well, on August 18 this parliament will not exist," but when we wanted to know further whether that meant we would have an election he said, " Well, there is nothing in the constitution concerning that." As an hon. member put it earlier in the afternoon, if we were to follow the reasoning of some hon. members opposite there would never be a general election.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: That is Toryism.
92582-165}


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Parliament is out, automatically, but that does not matter to them. That does not mean we must elect another one. It is out, that is all. Were it not for the fact that they need supply they would stay there forever. Of course the framers of the constitution never dreamed of a government attempting to remain in office after its powers had automatically ceased, and for that reason those framers forgot to remind such governments that when a parliament was completed it might be a good thing to elect another one. They forgot about that. We are here to remind the government of that fact. We want the elections to be held. We do not wish particularly to disrupt the plans of hon. members opposite; if the people want them-well, they deserve them, and that is all there is to it. We do not say that we are going to win; we simply say the people are entitled to make a choice. Yet the Minister of Justice states, "Well, parliament will be out automatically on August 18, but that is no indication that an election will follow." That is the way the matter stands. That is our grievance and the grievance of the Canadian people. We want to make sure that after that day the people of Canada will still be represented by a parliament of some sort. We want the government to tell us that instead of adjourning they are going to expedite the business of this session, and for the Canadian people we want the assurance-and the Canadian people may choose hon. members opposite; we never know-that on a certain day some group of members will be chosen. That is all we want to know.
I have still another point to make. The hon. member who preceded me in the debate stated, among other things, that in this debate we should not discuss other than the motion for the adjournment, and then the hon. member proceeded to speak about everything except that motion. I will admit, though, that he was replying to some hon. gentleman on this side of the house, and there is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that when one is arguing that parliament should not adjourn it is quite in order to mention different matters that should receive the consideration of parliament.
My hon. friend quoted the Ottawa Citizen, and he went pretty far back, citing what the Citizen said in 1933. Well, I have here the Ottawa Citizen of 1935, for the third of April. What does it say? I shall not read it because I am not supposed to quote a newspaper, but I shall just refresh my memory by glancing at it once in a while. The Ottawa Citizen if I remember well, says that there is no
2592	COMMONS
Long Adjournment-Mr. Rinjret ___
shadow of an excuse for a performance such as we have now. It is speaking not of what happended three years ago but of what is happening now, and it says that there is not the shadow of an excuse for parliament carrying on the way it is. I shall be glad to hand this extract to the whip of our party if he is going to quote extracts in reply to my hon. friend from Dorchester. It will be a good companion to what we heard a moment ago.
The Ottawa Citizen also says, if I remember well, that there does not seem to be any special reason for keeping up this performance. That is exactly what we are arguing. But the Ottawa Citizen goes further, and goes a little too far I think, but sometimes the newspapers are a bit violent in their terms. The Ottawa Citizen, not of three years ago but three days ago, says that it is a crime against Canada to keep up this negative performance-^a crime against Canada. I think so too. Shakespeare has one of his characters speak of a Daniel come to judgment. It is a crime against Canada because a general election has to come eventually, and it is well for constituted authority in Canada that the people, who are in desperate circumstances cannot see this daily performance of futility in Ottawa because it would produce something like revolution. That is the Ottawa Citizen, the same paper that appeals to my hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon), but evidently he does not read it every morning, or perhaps he chooses only the editorials that suit him.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: 'He misses those that are against him.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I should enjoy very much going on, Mr. Speaker, but I think we are all anxious to vote, both those who think that parliament should work and those that think it Should not. I merely want to say in conclusion that the precedent of Kill cited by the Minister of Justice is not an appealing one to me. That was not an election year notwithstanding what the Minister of Justice said. It is true an election was held that year, but it was not an election year because the then parliament had run for only three years, and when Sir Wilfrid Laurier after presenting to the house his new measure of reciprocity asked for an adjournment that he might go to London, there was not much expectation at that time that that measure would receive the opposition that it did meet with when he came back. He came back, and what happened? There was opposition in this house and opposition in the country also. That is an example that we are very proud to cite to-day. Let the government do what Sir Wilfrid Laurier did. It is the very thing we

ask, because Laurier went to the people. He was defeated, it is true, but it was not an inglorious defeat.
We Liberals, as I said at the start, and I was not speaking in light fashion, do not want to wrest power from the people. We merely want the people to pronounce for themselves
__that is all. I know that that is not the
policy of the Conservative party. In 1896 parliament sat until the last minute of the last hour of the last day. In 1916 again a Conservative government extended the life of parliament for a whole year, and here we are in 1935 and we have not even the assurance that when the life of this parliament expires automatically, it will be immediately replaced. The whole purpose of the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Quebec East is to express the grievance of the Canadian people who want to choose a new government, who ask for that opportunity, and we are here voicing that desire of the Canadian people.


Felix Patrick Quinn: They are not represented by you.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Did I hear a sound from the other side? I shall vote, Mr. Speaker, to express the desire of the Canadian people and shall support with all my might the amendment that has been moved by my hon. friend from Quebec East.


Joseph Léonard Duguay: Just one word, Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret). We will be frank enough to go to the people and tell them what our program is, but the hon. member for St. James did not dare go before the people of Montreal when he was mayor of that city.


Mr. WHITE (London):: I was paired with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BARBER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totske). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BUTCHER:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Burns). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ROBINSON:: I was paired with the
hon. .member for Portneuf (Mr. Desrochers). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. GOLDING:: I was paired with the
hon. merhber for North Perth (Mr. Wright). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. HARRIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I was paired with the
hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Hurtubise). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.

Long Adjournment-Division


Mr. McDADE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MOORE (Chateauguay-Huntingdon):: I was paired with the bon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MacLEAN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


George Washington McPhee: I was paired with the
hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Ganong). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Stitt). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. HALL:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Victoria (Mr. Stinson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was paired
with the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
Mr, McINTOSH:	I was paired with the
hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy). Had I voted, I would have voted certainly for the amendment.


Ernest Lapointe: I was paired with the
hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. HOWARD:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Casselman). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
Mr. ST-PERE:	I was paired with the
hon. member for South Hastings (Mr. Tum-mon). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: I was paired
with the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Stirling). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
Mr. DORIO'N (Translation): I was paired
with the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Verville). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Fortin); otherwise, I would have voted for the amendment.


Sir EUGENE FISET (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon); otherwise, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. LACROIX (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Dufferin-Simeoe (Mr. Rowe). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Wilfrid Girouard: I was
paired with the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Lafleche); otherwise, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. DUBOIS (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Bell); otherwise, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. THAUVETTE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Matane (Mr. Larue); otherwise, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BOUCHARD (Translation):: Following an agreement with the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Pettit), I abstained from voting in his absence. Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
Main motion (Mr. Rhodes) agreed to and the house went into committee of ways and means, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, April 10, 1935