UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Mr. GORDON:: I desire to lay on the table of the house certains orders in council passed pursuant to the relief measures.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
STEAMSHIP CYMBELINE INVESTIGATION*
['I have endeavoured to\nobtain these names but if the hon. member will be satisfied to allow this question to stand as an order for return I will bring down the return later on.']
Mr. DURANLEAU:: I have received verbal information to the effect that the investigation has been terminated, but as yet no report has been received by the department. However, it is expected that this will be forthcoming in a few days. The answers to the last two questions will be in the negative.



Mr. GAGNON:: 1.	Was one Miss Ruth Edwards employed in the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa since 1920?
2.	If so, how long did she work in Ottawa?
3.	Has she been transferred to Montreal?
4.	If so. for what reason?
5.	Did the department try to send her to the maritime provinces before transferring her to Montreal?
0.	Who recommended such a transfer to the Civil Service Commission?
7.	What reasons were alleged for such a transfer?
8.	Did the department consider, before making such a transfer, that the transfer of Miss Edwards was preventing promotion of other employees?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	Yes: Miss Ruth Edward (not Edwards) was employed at Ottawa.
2.	In the Department of Agriculture from November, 1918, to June, 1919, and continuously from October, 1919, to July, 1929.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) There was need in Montreal for one seed analyst thoroughly proficient in the English language, the former English-speaking analyst having died, (b) Miss Edward's parental home is in Montreal, (c) The work at Ottawa had decreased because of the establishment of a laboratory in each of the maritime and Quebec inspection districts and the transfer to these laboratories of work formerly done at Ottawa.
5.	No.
6.	The Deputy Minister of Agriculture on the recommendation of the seed commissioner.
7.	Answered by No. 4.	*
8.	No. The established position occupied by Miss Edward in the Ottawa laboratory was also transferred to Montreal.

Question's


Mr. GAGNON:: 1.	Was one Miss Marguerite Girard employed in the Department of Agriculture, seed branch, Montreal, in the province of Quebec?
2.	If so, since when?
3.	In what capacity?
4.	What salary did she receive?
5.	Was she recommended to the Civil Service Commission by the Department of Agriculture in 1931 and 1932 to be employed in Montreal?
6.	If so, who signed the recommendation for the Department of Agriculture?


Mr. WEIR (Meifort):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Each seed testing season since January, 1926.
3.	January 4, 1926, to May 15, 1926, temporary junior seed analyst; December 20, 1926-April 30, 1927, permanent-seasonal junior seed analyst; January 9, 1928-June 30, 1928, permanent seasonal junior seed analyst; December 17, 1928-April 30, 1929, permanent-seasonal junior seed analyst; January 7, 1930-July 6, 1930, temporary seed analyst; January 12, 1931-July 11, 1931, temporary seed analyst; March 1, 1932-May 31, 1932, temporary seed analyst and junior seed analyst.
4.	1st season, S65 per month; 2nd season, $65 per month increased to $75 per month; 3rd season, $75 per month; 4th season, $75, increased to $80 per month; 5th season, $100 per month; 6th season, $100 per month; 7th season, $100 per month as seed analyst for one month, $65 per month as junior seed analyst for two months (less 10 per cent).
5.	Yes.
6.	Dr. J. H. Grisdale, Deputy Minister of Agriculture.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE:
How many superior officers in the Canadian merchant marine are Canadian citizens or native Canadians, and how many were born in foreign countries or in Great Britain?
Mr. MANION:: I have endeavoured to
obtain these names but if the hon. member will be satisfied to allow this question to stand as an order for return I will bring down the return later on.



INCOME WAR TAX ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, I think it well to state

that in view of the representations which have been made during the last few days in connection with Bill No. 11, notably a request from the board of trade sent by way of a telegram received yesterday and asking that further consideration of this bill be deferred until January 30 in order that they may have an opportunity to make representations, we will leave this bill on the order paper until January 30. I have conferred with the commissioner of income tax who informs me that no public interest will in any sense be injured by reason of this bill standing until that date. I believe there is a misapprehension upon the part of the Toronto Board of Trade, but in view of the shortness of time we thought that no injury would be done if the -bill stood until January 30.



REDISTRIBUTION BILL


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 2, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons.
He said: In moving the second reading of Bill No. 2, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons, I think it is necessary only to point out that the bill corresponds identically, except as to dates, with chapter 63 of the statutes of 1924. It is identical also with the bill introduced by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in 1923 when Prime Minister, except as to section 4 which has been amended to meet the changed conditions with respect to population. It might be pointed out that the practice of introducing this bill in this form commenced in 1903 when the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier brought in a bill which set forth the number of members to which the provinces would be entitled under redistribution, it being left- to the house to determine the boundaries of the constituencies. This matter was very fully dealt with by the right hon. gentleman opposite when he introduced a bill in 1923, and I do not think any good purpose will be served by repeating the statements then made except to say that the practice commenced by Sir Wilfried Laurier in 1903 has been followed in subsequent redistribution measures. The old contest in the House of Commons over the boundaries of constituencies which

Redistribution-Mr. Bennett
represented the views of the government of the day, has not taken place since 1903. In this instance, it is proposed to proceed exactly as has been done since 1903.
It will be recalled that the British North America Act provided that ait Confederation the number of members in the House of Commons would be 181-this is covered by section 37-and that the method by which increases were to be made as provided by the constitution is covered by section 51, which reads:
On the completion of the census in the year cue thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, and of each subsequent decennial census, the representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and from such time as the parliament of Canada from time to time provides, subject and according to the following rules:
(1)	Quebec shall have a fixed number of sixty-five members;
(2)	There shall be assigned to each of the other provinces such a number of members as will bear the same proportion to tile number of its population (ascertained at such census) as the number sixty-five bears to the number of the population of Quebec (so ascertained) ;
(3)	In the computation of the number of members for a province a fractional part not exceeding one-half of the whole number requisite for entitling the province to a member shall be disregarded; but a fractional part exceeding one-half of that number shall be equivalent to the whole number;
(4)	On any such readjustment the number of members for a province shall not be reduced unless the proportion which the number of the population of the province bore to the number of the aggregate population of Canada at the then last preceding readjustment of the number of members for the province is ascertained at the then latest census to be diminished by one-twentieth part or upwards;
(5)	Such readjustment shall not take effect until the termination of the then existing parliament.
It will be observed that the unit of representation is ascertained by dividing sixty-five, the constant number of members from Quebec, into the population of that province. Inasmuch as the boundaries of the province of Quebec were extended in 1912, it was provided, in order that the other provinces might not feel that they had been unfairly dealt with, that the population into which sixty-five would be divided would be the population of old Quebec, that is, the population within the area of the provinces as it was at confederation. The effects of the present census are set forth in the notes to the bill. It might be well to indicate the populations of
the provinces under the census of 1931, which were as follows:
Prince Edward	Island	 88,038
Nova Scotia	 512,846
New Brunswick	 408,219
Ontario	 3,431,683
Manitoba	 700,139
Saskatchewan	 921,785
Alberta	 731,605
British Columbia	 694,263
Quebec (without	new	Quebec)..	2,872,078
The population of new Quebec is given at 2,177. The total population into which sixty-five is to be divided is 2,872,078, and the result of that division is a quotient of 44,186, which constitutes the unit of representation. By dividing the population which I have indicated for the different provinces with this unit of representation, we have the representation to which each province is entitled.
However, there are two exceptions which must be borne in mind. The first is found in subsection four of section 51 of the British North America Act, to which I have just directed attention. This deals with the diminution in population and provides that where the change in population does not exceed one-twentieth, there shall be no change, but where it does exceed one-twentieth, it is competent to reduce the number of members.
The second exception is to be found in the provisions of the constitutional amendment of 1915. It will be recalled that after Prince Edward Island came into confederation, the number of senators from the three maritime provinces remained at twenty-four. Two senators were taken from New Brunswick and two from Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island was then given four senators, so that Nova Scotia had ten; New Brunswick, ten and Prince Edward Island, four. But it was provided in 1915, in consequence of the representations so strongly urged in the house at that time, that a change should be. made by amending the constitution and, as a result of the amendment which was made it was provided that the representation in the House of Commons should never be less than that in the Senate. So Prince Edward Island, which would be entitled to only two members, is, by reason of the operation of that provision, entitled to four and the province of New Brunswick that would be entitled to only nine members, under the rule set forth in section 51 of the British North America Act, will be entitled to ten members because it has a representation of ten in the Senate. There-
[Stage Direction]
Redistribulion-Mr. Bennett
fore the application of the rule, with the exceptions to which I have just directed attention, would result in the following;
Province-	Representation
Prince Edward Island	 4
Nova Scotia	 12
New Brunswick	 10
Quebec		65
Ontario	 82
Manitoba	 17
Saskatchewan	 21
Alberta	 17
British Columbia	 16
Yukon	 1
We have in the draft bill provided for one member for the Yukon, leaving its representation as it is. This makes a total of 245 members.
It will be further observed, from the notes that accompany the bill, that were it not for the application of the exception provided for in section 51, there would have been a loss of membership in Ontario, but inasmuch as the census indicates there has been no diminution that exceeds one-twentieth, the membership remains at eighty-two the figure we now have. The net result is that the representation of New Brunswick, as I said, will be ten instead of nine by reason of the provisions of the statute of 1915; that of Ontario will be eighty-two as it now is; that of British Columbia will be increased by two, from fourteen to sixteen; that of Alberta is increased by one, from sixteen to seventeen; that of Manitoba will be seventeen as it now is; that of Saskatchewan will be twenty-one as it now is; that of Prince Edward Island remains at four as it now is, by reason of the 1915 amendment referred to; that of Nova Scotia will be reduced from fourteen to twelve, the result being that we have a total of 245 members as the house is now constituted. I do not think it desirable to put on Hansard again the figures that have been so frequently placed there, but I wish merely to indicate the general principles that govern the redistribution and the result of the application of the rule and its exceptions.
When the bill has been read a second time, I propose to move that it be referred to a committee, the names of which I hope to indicate to the house before we adjourn, the motion being that the bill be referred to a committee to be set up, the names of which, as I say, I shall presently give, I hope possibly at three o'clock. It is thought a committee of twenty will be satisfactory, as according to the strength of the parties in the house the
J-Mr. Bennett.]
government would have eleven members, the official opposition seven, and the other groups two on that committee. That involves a fair and just application of the relative strength of the parties in the house to a committee of twenty.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to the effect that the government intends to follow with respect to the readjustment of representation in this bouse about to be effected procedure similar to that which has been followed in the last three distributions, is entirely satisfactory. My right hon. friend says that the present bill is, with one exception which he has mentioned, identical with that which was presented to the house by the previous administration at the time of the last redistribution. That, I believe, is also correct and the fact may I say, quite satisfactory as far as we are concerned. In following the same procedure I hope it will be understood -and I assume it is from what the Prime Minister has just said-that the select committee of the house to be appointed and to which this measure will be referred, will be guided in its action by the same principles as guided previous committees in preparing the redistribution map, if I may so describe its work. In a word, the principles that have guided other committees have been, in the first instance, to follow as largely as possible the county municipal organizations in defining and delimiting the constituencies. The county municipal organization is that which is followed in municipal affairs and with respect to the judiciary and it is familiar to the people of the country generally. I suggest that it should again be adopted as largely as possible with respect to the defining of boundaries under the redistribution that is now to be made.
The second guiding principle is that the unit of representation in urban centres would necessarily be larger than that in rural constituencies. The reason for that is obvious. If it were not so, with the country as sparsely settled as it is in some parts, the rural constituencies would be difficult to control for purposes of administration. But there is a further and more important reason, and that is that as far as the urban constituencies are concerned, they have a means of voicing public opinion which rural constituencies have not. I need not mention the various organizations which exist in the urban centres, the large number of bodies such as boards of trade and commercial, industrial and social organizations.

Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
all of which play a part in forming and expressing public opinion. But I would refer particularly to the effect of the press. The daily press of the country is for the most part, :f not exclusively, to be found only in urban centres. The rural press is, generally speaking, weekly, semi-weekly or bi-monthly, and the press from the cities finds its way into the country districts to a very great extent, whereas the same cannot be said to be true of the press of the rural parts. As hon. members well know there is no other single factor that so largely goes to influence public opinion as the press. What is done in that way is reflected again by what is said here on the part of hon. members.
There is a further reason also, which I think will be apparent and which will appeal to hon. members. It not infrequently happens that rural constituencies are represented in the House of Commons by gentlemen who reside in cities and urban municipalities, but the reverse, except in very rare instances, is not the case. It seldom happens that an urban constituency is represented by someone who resides the year round in a rural constituency, but there are in the house at the present time and have been in all previous parliaments many hon. members who have represented rural constituencies but who are more familiar with the life of the cities and the large towns than with the life and needs of the rural communities. The principle of a larger unit for urban representation has been accepted practically ever since confederation by committees which have dealt with this matter, and I hope and asume full recognition of it will be given by the committee to which this bill will be referred.
' There is an additional guiding principle, that, so far as reasonably can be arranged, there should1 be an effort at compactness in the shaping of constituencies. That permits of an expression of opinion from a community that is familiar with its own affairs, and in that way helps to give a more accurate representation of the views of the people./
Finally there is one other factor which I should mention, and that is that so far as it can be arranged there should be an equalization of the representation as between the different urban constituencies and as between the different rural constituencies; that is to say, as nearly as such can be worked out, having regard to the other guiding principles to which I have referred, there should be as between city constituencies a unit of representation approximating that in other cities, and as between rural constituencies there should also be as nearly as possible an equal unit of representation. Undoubtedly it would not be possible for a committee to work out any redistribution map with mathematical exactness. That cannot be expected. The most that can be expected is that the members of the committee will seek to be fair and just and to apply common sense in an effort to frame the redistribution map along the lines that I have indicated. The purpose of bringing together a number of members of the House of Commons around a common table to discuss with good intentions the framing of a redistribution that will be fair and equitable has been found to be an infinitely better method than the old one of having the government itself frame the map, in the first instance, and then bring it into this house for discussion. The report of the committee will of course be open to amendment, acceptance or rejection by the house, but it is to be hoped it will be so nearly a matter of general agreement, that none of these steps may be necessary.
May I point out that since this new method has been adopted of referring the question of delimiting the constituencies to a select committee of the house there has been unanimity on the part of the committee with respect to the measure that was subsequently recommended to the house. At all events agreement was arrived at. I think that was due to the fact that a real effort was made by the members of the redistribution committee to be as fair and just and use as much common sense as they could in framing the redistribution map. I believe that we shall be able to count on at least a like degree of agreement in any committee that may be appointed at this time.
May I add this further word? The Prime Minister has indicated that the committee is to be named forthwith. I assume that the proceedings of parliament will not continue much longer for the present, but it might be of advantage to those on the committee if its membership could be brought together before adjournment and the members themselves provided with what there may be available in the way of data, maps and the like, which later will have to be considered by the committee, and which if made available to the members at once would perhaps expedite the committee's work when it meets after the adjournment.


Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: As a Nova Scotian I was, of course, very much interested in the remarks of the Prime Minister, but I would like to call attention to whait the effect of the rule referred to will be
Redistribution-Mr. Lapointe

so far as my province is concerned. At confederation Nova Scotia had a representation of 18 members in this house, and that was subsequently increased to 21. Since then our representation has gradually been brought down until today it is 14. Under the proposal referred to by the Prime Minister, after the next redistribution Nova Scotia's representation will be cut down to 12. Compare the position of Nova Scotia in that respect with that of Prince Edward Island. When Prince Edward Island came into the union we unfortunately lost two senators as did also the province of New Brunswick. Subsequently the British North America Act was amended to give to the province of Prince Edward Island four senators and an equal number of members of parliament. The population of Prince Edward Island is practically one-sixth of that of the province of Nova Scotia, yet their representation in this house is one-third that of the province of Nova Scotia. I do not intend to discuss this matter at any further length because I assume that the whole matter will be fully discussed before the committee. I trust that the committee and the house generally will take a sympathetic attitude regarding the representation of the province of Nova Scotia, which I bold should not in view of the understanding under which we entered confederation fall below the present number of 14 members.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I call attention to the fact that we in the west, where there is any increase in population, have just as great a right to our proportion of the representatives that are due to us, and if we are going to begin to give fixed number of representatives to certain of the older provinces it is going to create a very serious situation across the west. There cannot be two or three different classes of Canadians in this country, with certain classes having superior rights to others. If a mistake -was made in giving a fixed number of representatives to Prince Edward Island there is no reason why we should follow a bad precedent. The way to get away from that is to amend the British North America Act so that Prince Edward Island would have only its due number and not a number out of proportion to the rest of the country.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: I agree with the last speaker (Mr. Woods-worth) that there should not be different classes of Canadians when it comes to representation in parliament. The right hon. the Prime Minister has accurately and fairly stated

to the house what the legal position is with regard to the basis of representation in the house.
I wish to call attention to an anomaly which is being discussed at the present to a considerable extent in my own province. As the right hon. gentleman has said, the basis of representation is the unit as determined by dividing the population of the province of Quebec by 65. The representation of the other provinces is supposed to be based on that unit of population. I think every hon. member of this house by a simple computation will see that the changes which are effected by one subsection of section 51 of the British North America Act work most unfairly in respect of the representation of the province of Quebec. I take the figures in bulletin No. 20 of the census of 1931, which show the quotient of the province of Quebec, of the new Quebec so far as its representation is concerned, to be 44,186. If you apply this quotient to Ontario you will find that if Ontario is granted 82 members, as it will be, and I agree that until a change is made in the British North America Act it should be done in that way, the unit in Ontario will be 41,849 as compared with 44,186 in the province of Quebec. Surely my friends from Ontario are just as well qualified as we are in the province of Quebec to represent the same number of people. But they will not, under the new redistribution; they will represent only a unit of 41,849 people. The anomaly of that situation is more glaring under the present redistribution because this great difference did not occur in 1921. In 1921, if the exception under subsection 4 of section 51 had not been applied, under the quotient Ontario would have had 80-86 members which would mean, under the act, 81 members. But this year the quotient of Ontario is not even 78, but 77-66. Therefore I say it is certainly unfair. I have tried to find in the debates on confederation and elsewhere the reason for the exception in subsection 4 of section 51, but have been unable to do so. This subsection is as follows:
On any such readjustment the number of members for a province shall not he reduced unless the proportion which the number of the population of the province bore to the number of the aggregate population of Canada at the then last preceding readjustment of the number of members for the province is ascertained at the then latest census to be diminished by one-twentieth part or upwards.
Why this provision? I cannot find why it appears; I should be pleased if some one could give me a reason. Perhaps it was inserted to help some of the smaller provinces, but when it works the way we see it will

Redistribution-Mr. Ralston
work this year, certainly it is an anomaly which works unfairly. I am sure hon. members from Ontario want only representation by population. Before confederation they fought for it, and that should be the principle governing that province. What amazes me is that this same principle is not working the other way. Why should not the representation decrease when its proportion of population with regard to the whole of Canada has not decreased by one-twentieth? Why should it increase if the number is increased by less than one-twentieth? As it is, any other province which would come under the same conditions keeps its representation, not on account of its own increase, but because of decreases in other parts of Canada,-and not of Quebec, which is taken as the pivot. If anybody can give me one sound reason for it, if anyone can tell me why Ontario should have only 41,000 as a unit of representation and w'e from Quebec should have 44,000, I am quite willing to listen, I cannot see how any reason could exist.
A suggestion was made that in order to equalize with Ontario, the number of representatives from Quebec should be increased. I do not think that would be a fair way of settling it. I believe the representation of *Quebec should remain at 65, as fixed by the British North America Act, but that subsection 4 of section 51 should disappear. Then we would have a real representation by population. The right hon. gentleman opposite has stated that before parliament meets again at the end of January there will be an interprovincial conference. There are certain changes in our constitution, and with regard to taxation, which seem desirable. I submit the Prime Minister should place this matter before the premiers from the various provinces. If that were done I believe they would come to the conclusion that subsection 4, which certainly works unfairly, ought to be repealed.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Shelburne-Yar-mouth):: Mr. Speaker, I have observations to make on only two points in connection with this bill. First I should like to direct my remarks to the effect it will have on the province of Nova Scotia. I thoroughly agree with the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) that it gives us a very great feeling of regret, and even of sadness, to see a progressive reduction in representation from our province. He has pointed out, and I shall supplement his remarks with figures, that since 1881 there has been, after each decennial census, a reduction in representation. In 1881 we had 21
members; in 1891, 20; in 1901, 18; in 1911, 16; in 1921, 14, and this bill provides for only 12.
I realize the fact, namely that it is in the bond, and that technically, according to the interpretation of the British North America Act, we must bow to the inevitable and, at least for the purposes of this bill, accept the reduction being made. I do feel however that we should not allow this occasion to pass without recording the position of Nova Scotia, and the idea which the fathers of confederation had in mind at the time they adopted a certain principle of representation. I shall take only a moment to remind the house that at the conference the Hon. George Brown when introducing the resolution with regard to representation, intimated that the practical result would be that "while lower Canada certainly will not be less, and the lower provinces may increase in population, they cannot decrease in the number of representatives." In contradistinction to that I point out to the house the fact that at every decennial census there has been a decrease. I point out, further, that the fathers of confederation had adequate representation in mind, and not only the principle of representation by population.
In support of that let me cite the instances of the provinces which came into confederation after 1867. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has been rather strong in his intimation that we must stick to the letter of the pact, and that the calculations must be made directly in accordance with the terms of the British North America Act. Let me remind him- and I do not do it in any spirit of criticism -that when Manitoba entered the confederation she had a representation amounting to less than the required unit for one member. Yet Manitoba was given a representation of four members. In 1881, I believe it was, a readjustment was made as had been provided in the act admitting Manitoba. At that time it was found that, under the strict arithmetical basis to which the hon. member has referred, Manitoba was entitled to only three members. The fact is however that when readjustment took place she was given five.
Let me remind the house further that when British Columbia entered confederation the strict principle was not applied. I need not be tender in my remarks because hon. members must realize that I am making these statements to the house simply to show that the arithmetical basis has not been the only principle upon which we have acted when fixing representations. When British Columbia entered confederation it had a total



Redistribution-Mr. Ralston
population of about 40,000 and was given representation of six members, and an irreducible minimum of six. Ten years after British Columbia entered she had only two units of representation, that is to say, her population entitled her to only two members. Ten years later, in 1891, she had a population which entitled her to only four members, if the unit of representation applicable to the maritime and other provinces which came into confederation originally, had been applied. Prince Edward Island had only five units of representation when she entered confederation, but was given six members. At the present time the representation of Prince Edward Island is four, the irreducible minimum. I just mention this to indicate to the house that it was not altogether arithmetic or mathematics that influenced those who were seeking to found and foster the Canadian idea of democratic institutions and representative government. So it is that Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island feel that they have made some contribution in men and women to the western provinces, the western provinces have had an increase not only in population but in territory as well, and we find ourselves today with the representation shifting to the west away from the provinces which originally entered confederation. I remind my friends that Nova Scotia was the cradle of representative institutions in British North America, and you cannot blame us for a feeling of regret and sadness that our representation is being reduced.
Let me close with this word taken from the case which was presented to the maritime commission three or four years ago.
There is surely something wrong with the system of representation which penalizes some provinces for the sacrifices they have made in sending their children and their means to upbuild the other parts of the dominion, and which would fail to make any special allowance in their representation in the Canadian parliament in respect of their isolated position which prevents them from enlarging their bounds out of the public lands of Canada.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, although it cannot be done in connection with this bill, that the suggestion of my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), might well be accepted by the right hon. Prime Minister, the matter might be made a subject of discussion at the inter-provincial conference, and in view of the fact that constantly during the last two or three sessions there has been forecast the possibility of amendments to the British North America Act, it seems to me this sub-
ject is one which might well engage the attention of those framing these amendments and discussing the subjects to be dealt with thereby.
So much for the general point. The other point is in connection with Nova Scotia, It is felt that there is grave doubt as to whether Nova Scotia during the last ten years has had its full representation. That comes about, as was pointed out to the commission on maritime claims, by reason of the fact that in calculating the unit of representation based on the 1921 census it seems there was included the portion of Quebec taken in under the legislation of 1898, with the result that the unit of representation was increased, with the consequence that, dividing that unit into the population of Nova Scotia the amount left over after the even number of members was found, was less than one half, whereas as a matter of fact had that addition to the population of Quebec not been included the amount left over would have been greater than one half-


Thomas Cantley: And would have added
another member to Nova Scotia's representation.


James Layton Ralston: -and therefore would
have entitled Nova Scotia to another member, as my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Cantley), suggests. It is too late to adjust that now, but I want to be sure, in connection with the calculation which has been made, that this mistake has not been made again.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is clear.


James Layton Ralston: I only want to mention
this to the right hon. Prime Minister. The notes to the bill are very specific in setting out the proportions in 1921 and 1931 between the populations of each province and the population of the dominion. But the notes to the bill do not set out what it is in the publication issued by my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), with regard to the census, and when we come to take this matter up I should like to see in black and white as part of the notes, the population, indicating, if it can be done, the portion of the province of Quebec which came in in 1898, the portion which came in in 1912, and the original province of Quebec. Because that did give rise to heart-burnings in Nova Scotia, and we feel that it is quite possible that it deprived us of a member for the last ten years.
I know the Prime Minister will permit the reservation of anything we might have to say

Redistribution-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
with regard to the matter of calculation of the number of representatives to which Nova Scotia is entitled arising out of a possible error in calculating the unit of representation caused by this addition to the province of Quebec.


Mr. J. A. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: May I ask the Prime Minister a question? The right hon. gentleman mentioned a population of 2,000 for new Quebec. Do they exercise the franchise, do they vote anywhere, are they comprised in any constituency?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As far as I know they are attached to the hinterland of the constituencies that run straight through to the boundary of Quebec. But I am not certain of that.


Ernest Lapointe: When it was added to Quebec in 1912 it was stated in the law that it would not be taken into account.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that is not the question the hon. gentleman asked. His question is whether or not the 2,177 souls within the province of Quebec do or do not vote. My memory is that they have a right to vote by reason of being the backlands of the constituencies that run straight through. That matter may easily be dealt with by the committee, I am not certain about it.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) :: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the government to the fact that there has been considerable agitation during the past ten years, perhaps not so much in recent years, to have representation for the Northwest Territories. I know that on one occasion there was some humorous discussion as to whether the natives should be entitled to vote. But that is not the question. The Yukon, which enjoys representation by the hon. the Speaker is very similar in its topographical features to the Northwest Territories, mining is 'becoming an important feature of the activities of the population there, and I thought that possibly the government would consider that this would be an appropriate time to give representation in this house in some way or another to the Northwest Territories.
With respect to the discussion on representation, may I say that I think it must be apparent to thoughtful men that we have too much representation in all our institutions. Naturally the excuse, if one would call it that, for the provinces and the municipalities having the representation that they enjoy in Canada today is that they take their cue from the federal government. I am well aware of the difficulties in the way of reduction of 53719-1011
representation in the House of Commons, but I confess that I think in Canada we are entirely over-governed, that the cost of government is away beyond reason with respect to the services rendered. I do not say that arises from over-representation, but I do say that if we have the population in Canada that we hope for it will not be long before we have a tremendous representation in this house. And when readjustment, as suggested by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) is taken into consideration at the forthcoming conference that I understand is to take place during the recess, it seems to me that this would be an appropriate time to discuss this whole question. It does seem to me that we in Canada could get along with a much smaller representation for administrative purposes in all our deliberative bodies.
But my main object was to bring to the attention of the government the fact that no provision is being made to give representation to the Northwest Territories in the forthcoming redistribution.


Mr. ALFRED SPEAKMAN (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, having been a member of the last redistribution committee, and having, I hope, taken my duties at that time somewhat seriously, I arrived at two or three opinions as a result of my experience which I should like to state briefly today. I am not going to comment on the general aspects of the bill, I think the procedure that has been followed the past years and which will be adopted is as fair and equitable as it very well can be. I think the bill we have, based as it is upon our constitution, the British North America Act, is the normal and proper bill on such an occasion, but there are one or two points which were the subject of very definite discussion the last time, which I have no doubt will be discussed just as strongly this coming year.
The first point was the general question of representation by population, "rep by pop" as it is popularly called; that is, the question of whether the rural and urban constituencies should have exactly the same unit of representation. In the last committee there was a very strong body of opinion in favour of "rep by pop," but there was a somewhat stronger body against it. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I am absolutely in agreement with the position taken by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in that respect; that is, that the rural constituencies should have a smaller unit of representation than the cities. After all, why do we have this representation? I assume that it is in

Redistribution-Mr. Speaknian
order that under our laws and our taxation customs absolute equality shall prevail throughout the country, so that each section of the population shall be dealt with fairly. But, as has been pointed out by the leader of the opposition, the representation in the House of Commons is not the only form of influence which has to do with the making of our laws or the formulation of our taxation policies. There are others. The right hon. gentleman referred to the question of the press, and undoubtedly in the matter of formulating and expressing public opinion the cities have a far greater opportunity through the public press than have the rural communities. But apart from that there is another question; the financial domination which is inseparable from the cities carries with it a tremendous influence which is not found in the rural communities. In that way, too, the cities have an opportunity to impress their beliefs, their ideas and their opinions upon the country and to put them into effect to a far greater extent than has a scattered rural population. Then there is the fact that through the centralization of population public opinion can be drawn together and expressed forcibly and adequately so much more easily and readily in the cities than is the case in the country.
For all these reasons I think it very essential that trie committee which will meet during the next part of this session should be very careful that the rural communities carry in every respect as fair a share as possible of influence upon the laws of the country. It must be recognized that from the very nature of our progressive civilization, making no reference to special laws which may favour the cities and which may naturally bring people together in industry, the proportion of our population found in the large centres must increase while the percentage found in the farming communities must decrease. There is no question about that. The fact that every new industry that is formed and every new want that comes into being is expressed in terms of industrial commodities makes it inevitable that this should be the case. On the other hand, however, there is no doubt that the rural portion of the community is of such tremendous importance that its viewpoint at all times must be adequately expressed.
As to the actual details of the bill, the Prime Minister has pointed to one or two factors which must be taken into consideration. First, of course, there is the factor of population, to ensure that after taking into

consideration the question of rural and urban constituencies, the population shall be as nearly as possible alike in the various constituencies. There is the question of natural boundaries which must be taken into account so far as possible. There is the question of accessibility, so that the lines of railways and highways shall be followed as nearly as possible. There is the question of community interest, to avoid as far as possible the division of community interests and to bring about their centralization. All those matters must be taken into account, but there is still another factor which appeared when the last bill was under consideration, and which undoubtedly will be found again. This is a factor which, to my mind, should be ignored as far as possible. I refer to the political factor. May I suggest that the members of the committee which is to be set up should avoid as far as possible this political factor, this desire which always has been found so to divide the ridings as to ensure a majority for one party or the other. I need only allude to that point and to glance at the faces of the older members of this house to assure myself that they understand the point. I think it very desirable that in this year of grace we should go a little beyond that and attempt so to carry on this redistribution that the people of the country, regardless of political affiliations, may have an equal chance to express their opinions when the time comes to do so. I only refer to that point because it is a question that is very dominant in the minds of the people at this moment. They are wondering today whether the committee will rise above those considerations or whether they will be influenced too much by them, as has been the case sometimes in the past.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If that closes the debate I have just a word or two to add. My hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) applies mathematics to the problem; my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) desires that mathematics shall not be applied. I can only say this, that what the east has lost in representation it has secured in no inconsiderable extent in representation in the newer provinces. A very large number of former residents of the three smaller provinces are residing now in at least three of the larger provinces, and representation is obtained in that way. I count it a privilege to have been born in New Brunswick, though I have the right to vote for and represent an Alberta constituency.

Redistribution-Mr. Bennett
I should like to say just one word to clear up a difficulty in connection with a matter mentioned by the hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth. I cannot find that the hon. member is correct in his statement that Nova Scotia lost a member by reason of what transpired at the last redistribution. Hon. E. M. Macdonald, who was then a minister of the crown from Nova Scotia, threshed out that matter very thoroughly. I am only speaking from what I understand to be the facts, since I was not in the house at that time, but my information is that allowance was made for the factor to which the hon. gentleman refers.
I understand that Mr. Macdonald pressed the matter very strongly but was overborne by mathematics and was unable to secure the retention of the additional membership to which the hon. gentleman has referred. I believe that on inquiry he will find this to be so, and I believe an investigation will satisfy the hon. gentleman that it is mathematically correct.
Further I should like to say that I do not think it probable that a provincial conference that has to deal with the problems with which we will have to deal will be in a position to discuss constitutional changes on general lines. The ex-Minister of Justice knows how contentious that subject is and how difficult of solution is the question of the amendment of the constitution on a large scale. That would involve a reconsideration of the question of the basis of representation in parliament. Sometimes I do think, and I believe most hon. members of the house will agree, that those who were responsible for the British North America Act were exceedingly wise men. When one thinks how, with changed conditions and new circumstances, we have been able to work out our problems within the elastic provisions of that statute, one has more and more regard, esteem and reverence for the genius of the men who prepared it, especially sections 91 and 92. When I look at section 51 I realize that those who had to deal with the problem felt that one day there would be a larger Canada and that sixty-five should be-I was very pleased to hear the hon. gentleman say that it was very proper that sixty-five was the unit-the unit. It is an amazing thing how the application of the principle mentioned in that section has kept pace with the expanding population of the country, the population of Quebec having kept pace and really more than kept pace with the growth of other parts of Canada. Of the older provinces, undoubtedly it was the province to select for a fixed
representation. The result is amazing when you contemplate it in the light of circumstances which have since transpired.
There is always a difficulty between the rural and urban populations.


Ernest Lapointe: Before my right hon.
friend comes to that, would he kindly give a justification for subsection 4 of section 51. Why should the unit of Quebec be 44,000 and that of Ontario 41,000?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad my hon.
friend mentioned that point. I know of no reason why, except that the two smaller provinces desired to ensure their position in confederation. I, like the hon. gentlemen, have not been able to find anywhere any discussion of this matter. At one time I intended to ask Sir Joseph Pope if there was any memorandum of Sir John Macdonald's on the matter, but so far I have not found anything which bears upon this particular point. Looking now at the matter as it stands, I am inclined to think that that one-twentieth or five per cent leeway was put there to protect the smaller provinces. I may be wrong, but that is the only suggestion I can give in answer to my hon. friend.


Ernest Lapointe: It probably works only
one way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Undoubtedly it works
only one way, it has the effect of increasing the unit of representation as it concerns Quebec and in many instances it places other provinces in not quite as good a position as the province of Quebec.
I was rather amazed at the argument of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speak-man), who seemed fearful of political considerations prevailing in a committee which is to be selected by mathematical processes. The figures are very clear. We would have 11-265 members on the committee, the official opposition would have 7-265 and Labour, the Independents and the United Farmers of Alberta would have 1-469. They have less than one and one-half and they are being given two, while the Liberals and Conservatives are losing their half. It was a rather strange argument which the hon. member used. He made a plea for the recognition of the rural population through a higher ratio of representation in the house than that enjoyed by the urban population. It rather negatives the argument of the hon. member for Queuec East (Mr. Lapointe), it was an assertion that 50,000 people in one part of Canada should have but one member while
Redistribution-Mr. Bennett

20,000 in another part would have the same representation. That was the argument. If he was fearful of political considerations prevailing and felt that there should be equality in every part of Canada with regard to representation, how is his first plea' supported? What he did in the early part of his argument was to contend that one man residing in the country should have as much influence as two and three residing in the city. He then closed by saying that political considerations should not prevail in order that the farmer would have the same rights as the city man and be in the same position. I leave it at that.
I desire to associate myself with what has been said in comparing the present method of proceeding by way of committee and that taken by the old parliaments when they themselves made the redistribution. In the old days, the government of the day brought in its bill, which was sometimes called a jerrymander bill.


An hon. MEMBER:: Quite often it was.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The boundaries of the
constituencies were defined by the government of the day and my reading leads me to the firm opinion that there has never been a time when the rural population of Canada has received such a relative representation compared with the urban population as it does today. I think the reasons for this were stated quite clearly by the right hon. the leader of the opposition.
I cannot anticipate the principles upon which the committee will act. It will be a -committee selected from the 245 members of this house. It will be comprised of twenty fair-minded men who will deal with this very difficult problem with all the ability and skill at their command. I fancy it will be recalled by the right hon. gentleman opposite that upon one occasion this committee was not able to complete its duties within a year and had to go into the following year because of the difficulties with which they had to deal. The right hon. gentleman said that the last committee was unanimous but I should think that one would have to put a slight shade of meaning upon the word "unanimous" in order to arrive at that conclusion. For the sake of argument we will admit that the report was accepted by the house as being substantially unanimous, which was a great triumph over prejudice and partiality.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank the
right hon. gentleman for his references.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the second time.
Richard Bedford Bennett: That Bill No. 2, intituled an act to readjust the representation in the House of Commons, be referred to a special committee, the names # the members of such committee to be given at a later date, with instructions to prepare schedules to contain and describe the several electoral districts entitled to return members to this house and to report the same.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, November 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Rhodes for committee of supply.
['Under a good government\nit would have that management. Some eight years ago, Mr. Speaker, I had the temerity to make the suggestion in this house that it would be worth while for the government of Canada-and it was a Liberal government at that time-to make a canvass of the whole railway situation, with a possible view of the\nUnemployment-Mr. Euler', 'amalgamation of the two great roads. I made the statement then, and I had it on very good authority, that we could save at least $75,000,000 yearly by the cutting out of wasteful competition. Not long ago, before the Royal Commisison on Railways and Transportation, Mr. Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, stated that a saving of $65,000,000 a year could be effected by the amalgamation of the two roads, and if that had been done at that time, in the ten years that have elapsed we -could have saved possibly three-quarters of a billion dollars, or about one-third of the *national debt.\nI had not intended to go into this matter very deeply, Mr. Speaker, but as I said at the outset of my remarks, it is never very safe to make too definite statements, especially if you are in public life, or too definite promises as to what you may do in the future, and when I say that I am not referring to the promises made by the Prime Minister in regard to unemployment. I am referring to the slogan, if you like to call it that, which the Prime Minister nailed to the mast during his campaign. In connection with the railways he said, "Amalgamation never; competition ever." I believe that before very long the Prime Minister will have to reverse that slogan, because if we continue as we are going at present in connection with the two railways, with the consequent waste, this country will not be able to bear the burden.\nI am out of order, perhaps, but I should like to make just a reference to the recommendations made by the royal commission. They advocate compulsory cooperation. This may be the only thing that can be done, but I will say that I have no great faith in compulsory cooperation; the two things just do not go together. I say further that in the future we will find the old slogan "competition is the life of trade" out of date; in certain respects at least competition is the death of trade and of prosperity. I hope that in future the slogan of Canadians and of the world will be cooperation rather than competition.\nThe question now is how far we can go in the direction of these socialistic tendencies, if you like to so call them. I am not prepared to say. It has been suggested that we should have a national bank, and that may be a good suggestion. It has been suggested also, and I am rather inclined to favour the suggestion, that we should at least mutualize our life insurance companies, and there may be many other directions in which we might proceed. The point I want to make, however, is that fMr. Euler.]\nI believe some modification of our present system is necessary. We may survive the present difficulties; after a while we may turn that mythical corner of which we have heard so much, around which we will find prosperity. I do not desire to be pessimistic, but I am a little afraid it may be some time before we turn that corner. Whether or not that is so, however, some time later we will have another period of depression, and that will happen again and again unless we modify our system.\nSome people think depressions are absolutely necessary under our capitalistic system. I do not believe that, but if it be so, then so much the worse for our system. In the olden days people believed that epidemics of smallpox, yellow fever and other diseases were dispensations of Providence, but science has overcome those epidemics. It does seem to me that it should not be regarded as inevitable that these alternate periods of depression and prosperity should exist in a country such as Canada. I feel that whether or not we see the way clear, at least we should make some effort to find a remedy. If there is one thing in the public mind at this time-and this applies not only to the people who have not very much by way of money or possessions but also to every member of this house, as it applies to myself- it is the constant fear of the future. We do not know what the future will bring, yet we are living in a country and in a world that can and should produce enough for everyone if that production is properly distributed. Surely there must be men of ability in this country, men of good will if you like, men like those who accomplished wonders during the development of the world\'s civilization, who can find a remedy, so that we should not regard ourselves as impotent to make further advances in the direction we desire to go.\nIn conclusion, Mr. Speaker, although I have made one or two tentative suggestions which possibly may be quite valueless, I admit, that I do not know the exact course of procedure which will bring about that which we all desire. During last session the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) proposed a resolution providing for the appointment of a committee or commission which would look into questions of this kind and present its findings and advice to the government. As I recall it, that resolution was passed by the house and accepted1 by the government, and I would suggest that action be taken along the lines suggested. Hon. members opposite, including the Prime Minister, have asked for\n\nC.N.R.-Snow Removal from Gaspe\ntbe cooperation of members of parliament in the difficulties through which we are passing. The Prime Minister has a right to make that request; I think it is our duty to extend that cooperation just so far as may be possible, and I was going to make this suggestion entirely on my own responsibility, unless the Prime Minister accepts the one I made with regard to the resolution adopted last year: the Prime Minister might very well consult with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the leaders of the parties to my left in connection with the appointing of a committee. This committee could consist of certain hon. members of this house, augmented and supplemented1 by men in the country from whom we could obtain information or inspiration and advice. This committee would have the power of investigation and of forming settled opinions so that some sort of program might be drafted which would tnable us to proceed in the promotion of that condition to which we would like to return or which we would like to reestablish. It might be found that such a committee would prove to be of real assistance to the Prime Minister when he goes to the next world conference or succeeding world conference upon the deliberations and recommendations of which may depend the prosperity of the world in general and Canada in particular.']
James Layton Ralston: Mr. Speaker, in connection with this motion I shall detain the house but a few moments in dealing with the conditions which prevail in the country generally and in connection with the fishing industry in particular, which industry has been hit as hard as any natural industry which could be mentioned.
Taking the conditions in the country as a whole, I think we are all agreed that they are perhaps worse than any which have prevailed at any time since confederation. There can be no division of opinion in connection with a situation where between seven and eight hundred thousand people are receiving relief. While we may say that it should not be so and while we do say that promises were made that it would be otherwise, for the moment we must devote ourselves to endeavouring to find some solution for the problem and some mitigation for the conditions which will exist this winter.
There is going to be a day, perhaps not far distant, when an accounting will be demanded of the stewardship of those who are in power at the present time. There is going to be a day when men will ask a reason for the disastrous condition which has followed the very flagrant breaches of undertakings which were given in 1930. But we can afford for the moment to leave that to one side in order to discuss conditions as they exist at the present time and any thing which may be done to ameliorate them. The other evening the Prime Minister made a statement which was regarded in the country as being rather important, namely, that a provincial conference was being called, but with due respect- and I am not making this criticism in any carping spirit-I felt that perhaps too much emphasis was laid by him on matters that are not essential at this time. It was pointed out to us that this conference would be held

Fishing Industry-Mr. Ralston
in order to discuss amendments to the Companies Act. Of course such amendments are important, but they pale into insignificance beside the question of unemployment and that of the necessity of our people having an opportunity to earn a living. Amendments to the Insurance Act and the question of provincial and federal jurisdiction were to be discussed as well. The matter of spheres of taxation was also to be taken up. I felt that the real object for which this conference ought to be called was somewhat beclouded by the extended references which the Prime Minister made to those matters which would be discussed at a provincial conference at any time, iD any year in the history of the dominion and that the real object for which this conference should be called, and I hope the real one which the Prime Minister has in mind, was the discussion of unemployment and relief conditions and the possibility of providing an opportunity for our people to work.
The right hon. leader of the government (Mr. Bennett) has repeatedly in the house mentioned the constitutional question. I do not think there is any difference of opinion in this chamber or in the country with regard to the constitution. We all agree that in times of national emergency the dominion has jurisdiction to legislate or to impose its will upon the people of the provinces; that it assumes paramount legislative jurisdiction. But we are not at this time-and I commend this to my right hon. friend-talking about the question of imposing obligations on provinces or on the people of the provinces; we are talking about the possibility of conferring some benefit upon them and there is in the British North America Act, that sacred ark of the covenant, nothing which prevents us from doing so. My right hon. friend draws a distinction between a national emergency and a national condition. The people do not care one whit whether it is a national emergency or a national condition; they are hungry and cold and need shelter.


Mr. POULIOT:: They are in distress.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, they are in distress. It does not make any difference what you call it, if the federal authority has power within itself to deal with the situation, it seems to me that my right hon. friend cannot get rid of the responsibility. All the discussion that there has been about the British North America Act, the jurisdiction of the provinces and the inviolate field which must be maintained there with regard to legislation amounts to little when we have the responsibility definitely assumed by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon). He has made the
position of the government abundantly clearr as a minister of the crown in a federal government which takes its jurisdiction from the British North America Act, he says this: "No one need worry about being adequately supplied with food, clothing, fuel and shelter." There is a responsibility assumed, and I do not think there is any need of a lengthy discussion on the question of the constitution. The government has assumed the obligation and the question is now: What is the best way to carry it out? I say frankly to my right hon. friend that when you use federal money, for instance, as it is used in connection with the Old Age Pensions Act, you may impose conditions and say to the people: You may use this money only provided those conditions are observed. My right hon. friend two years ago, in bringing down the provision for unemployment relief, expressly imposed by order in council provisions in regard to accounts, and in regard to supervision. All those were put into the order in council and nobody suggested that this was unconstitutional. So in the same way we can suggest and impose conditions whenever we pay money out of the federal treasury. Nobody doubts that the Dominion of Canada has power to pay money out of the federal treasury for these purposes of relief. The Minister of Labour has admitted that and the question of jurisdiction is rather beyond the point now, having regard to the serious situation which confronts us.
I do not intend at any length to go into the question of the method whereby that general principle is to be carried out. I say this to my right hon. friend, since he has suggested that a provincial conference should be held. I reiterate what my right hon. leader has said so frequently that the people of Canada are entitled to see some mobilization of the business, industrial, agricultural and economic forces of this dominion in order that plans may be worked out to deal with this situation. I do not think that is a reflection on the government. The same thing is being done in the country to the south of us. It seems to me that the problem is far and away beyond one simply of government and administration, and while the government have the responsibility for the expenditure of this money, at the same time I do not think they would be humiliating themselves in the slightest if they took the advice of some national council which could survey the field broadly, not from the point of view of legislative jurisdiction alone. What I mean by that is this: I mean there may be in the dominion certain industries which, if assisted to a reasonable extent by a direct grant of money, if you like, might provide substantial

Fishing Industry-Mr. Ralston
employment. For instance, those who are engaged in and familiar with the lumbering industry might be able usefully to advise the government in that respect. With regard to plans which might be made as to conditions under which the money is to be spent, people throughout the dominion could give advice out of their ripe experience and their knowledge of the business in which they are engaged and the part of the country from which they come. That is not handing jurisdiction over to a federal commission or a violation of the British North America Act, but it is carrying out the idea of national cooperation and the mobilization of national forces. That is what has been suggested repeatedly and what is at last being adopted in a more or less modified form by my right hon. friend when he suggests conferences. Let me point out to him that this matter of conferences is not new. He had in 1930 exactly the idea which I am now trying to express. I find in his speech on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, he complains on February 24, 1930, about conditions in Canada being very, very bad. I quote from page 18 of Hansard of that date where he is reported as saying: What about conditions in this dominion at this moment? What about conditions from east to west? It is true that part of the unemployment is seasonal; but since the beginning of the year I have traversed Canada from Victoria to the far east and in every city of this dominion, east and west, there is abnormal unemployment, so that men who are accustomed to give, as I have been, to assist those who are unable to earn sufficient to keep body and soul together, have never before seen such distress as I have seen in the communities I have visited.
Then he goes on:
What was the Minister of Labour doing? What was the Prime Minister doing? Were they calling conferences? The only conferences they were calling were conferences to determine how best they could ward off the blows of an indignant people. The only conferences they were having were as to how they might increase their power and retain their positions. I have received a telegram from the secretary or the Miners' Union at Fernie indicating that their mine is closed because it is owmed in the Unitec, states by one of the great railway systems and in pursuance of the policy of Mr. Hoover to give employment to the people in that country they are going to mine coal in the Lnited States and shut down the Canadian mine. What is the Minister of Labour doing about the matter ? Where was there a conference of Canadian business men?
This is what we are suggesting.
Were they asked to meet together? They were not.
My right hon. friend now suggests they cannot be; that the constitution prevents it. I submit to ham that there is no doubt in the
[Mr. KUston.j
world he was then suggesting the very thing which we are suggesting now. He goes on:
When a meeting was called by Mayor Webb m W innipeg of all the mayors of western towns and representatives of western provinces as well, the minister will recall that he was to attend and it was given out that he was ill and unable to go, but his illness was not so great as to prevent him from attending banquets around but not on that particular date.
There was a clear intimation by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister that he did believe in the calling of conferences, the calling of those who had experience in connection with the general business and industrial life of the country. The seriousness of the condition then did not compare with conditions today, and I submit to him, even though two years have passed, and although the delay has been very harmful, it is not too late for some such conference as this to be called in order that this country, if it is going to revive from the situation in which it finds itself, may have the assistance of the brains and experience of our business leaders and of those engaged in both natural and manufacturing industry all over this country. That has got to be done, and I submit to my right hon. friend that that should be done now regardless of whether or not an interprovincial conference is going to be called. I mention this in passing because I do feel that we should not spare any endeavour to impress on my right hon. friend the necessity for national organization to take hold of the situation in which the country finds itself at the present time.
I want to refer for a moment or two to an industiy that has not been mentioned here. Agriculture has been mentioned, and there has been a good deal of talk about manufacturing. I want to refer to the fishing industry in which are engaged in the province of Nova Scotia some 20,000 men, and which industry provides, or should provide, a livelihood for these men and their families.
An interesting sidelight came to me recently in connection with this matter of fish. We are all looking for markets for lumber, for wheat, copper and fish. I pick up the St. John Telegraph-Journal of November 23, and I find there the menu provided at the penitentiary of St. Vincent de Paul for a week. Do you know I have searched that from start to finish, and there is not a single item of fish on the menu.


Mr. ERNST:: I beat you to it. I drew
the matter to the attention of the Fisheries Association.

Fishing Industry-Mr. Ralston


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is always ahead. I only want to say to the government, no wonder these men in St. Vincent de Paul rebel.


Mr. ROSS:: They may refuse fish, just as
they have refused porridge.


James Layton Ralston: If you put fish on the
menu I think probably those men would return to sanity and be perfectly tractable.
I commend that suggestion to the minister, not to the Fisheries Association, but to the Minister of Justice whose department provides the menu in St. Vincent de Paul. That is an instance of what goes on. Even for Friday I cannot find fish on the menu.
Let me speak for a moment with regard to conditions in the fishing industry as I know them in the western end of Nova Scotia. These men and women are not asking for sympathy or relief if they can have an opportunity to earn a living in their vocation.
I want to point out to the government that there is a possibility of at least substantially improving the situation down there without going to the extent of relief; that is, the payment of actual dollars which would otherwise be necessary. I want to give two or three instances to the house showing what these men earn who are engaged in this hazardous industry.
Let me remind the house that the individual shore fisherman and the men who go out in a two-man or three-man boat probably out at three in the morning and do not return till late in the afternoon. He may have had a poor day or a fairly good day. He has to pay for his oil and his gasoline and his bait and for the upkeep of his boat, and sometimes he does not catch enough fish to pay his expenses at the very low prices for fish now prevailing. I have here some actual examples of what these fishermen have earned, men who have persistently pursued their vocation in an endeavour to make a living.
Here is one case of two men going out two months day after day and getting a total of $64 for the two months' work. Interest, upkeep and depreciation comes to $20 for a boat probably costing $600. The net result is $44 for two months' work, on which these men have to keep themselves and their wives and families.
Here is another case of two men going out day after day, and at the end of the trip they average $15 for two months' work. They get $36 altogether. Their out-of-pocket expenses were $21, leaving $15 or $7.50 apiece for the two months.
35-1932-2-r
Here is another case of men going out in a schooner for a trip of eight weeks. I find that these men got a little o"ver $25 per man for that eight weeks' period.
Here is the case of two men making eleven trips covering a two months' period, going cut in a two-man boat, and making $92 altogether; out-of-pocket expenses $38; $20 for interest, upkeep and depreciation; leaving $34 to divide between himself and his buddy. Think of it, $34 for two months' work for two men.
Here is another fisherman whose gross is $56; out-of-pocket expenses $26; $20 for interest, upkeep and depreciation; actual net, $10 to be divided between two men for two months' work.
Another fisherman gets $26 in a two-months' period; expenses $16, leaving him $10, out of which he has to pay interest, upkeep and depreciation.
Here is the case of a three-man boat making ten trips, with a gross of $138; interest, upkeep and depreciation, $48; leaving $90 to be divided among three men for two months' work.
Another instance. A four-man boat makes seven trips and grosses $123.15; out-of-pocket expenses $63; interest, upkeep and depreciation $40, leaving S20 to be divided amongst four men for two months' work.
The house might ask why is there this difference between the number of trips that these men take. The difference is due to this: Men who are away behind cannot afford to go out except on the very best days. They cannot afford to pay for gasoline and oil and bait and run the risk of a bad trip and a nonproductive catch. I emphasize again that this is hazardous work. It is the hardest sort of work, and these men are constantly at it in an endeavour to make a living.
You ask me, what is the remedy? The situation is this. That fish is bringing from three-quarters of a cent to one cent a pound. The difficulty is that these men are directly in competition with the trawlers which have been repeatedly mentioned in this house and in orders in council and even in statutes. I submit that at this time the remedy is for the government either definitely to refuse licences for the trawlers which are operating or to so reduce the number of trawlers, so that the fisherman will have the first chance at the market. I am not going into the history of the trawler situation except to put clearly on record that the Maritime Fisheries Commission in 1928 made a report, the majority recommending the absolute abolition of the trawler, and the minority, the chairman.
1(502

Fishing Industry-Mr. Ralston
recommending that the trawlers be reduced at least to an extent that would give the fishermen the first opportunity at the market. The government of that day made an investigation into the whole matter, and after the fullest inquiry by the Minister of Fisheries massed an order in council whereby it was prodded that the trawlers should be licensed ind that the licence fee should amount to one cent a pound for non-Canadian-built rawlers, and three-quarters of a cent a pound for fish landed from Canadian trawlers, and that after April 1, 1932, only Canadian-built trawlers should operate. The tax was imposed. Trawler interests were very much against it. It was paid by some companies and refused by others. Action was brought, with the result that the order in council was held to be ultra vires, that is to say beyond the scope of the act under which it was passed. That was after the present government came into power but no action was taken to reinstate the order in council or to make it effective by legislation, although that could have been done. But the present government, following a considered policy, passed an order in council under the act whereby it was provided that two things should take place, first that trawlers should be licensed and secondly-a more or less important provision-that trawlers should be marked so that they could easily be identified in case of the destruction of fishermen's gear. But, this proviso was put in-and it is to this proviso that I refer the government-that trawlers should be licensed only to the extent that was necessary to make up for any deficiency in the supply of fish from shore fishermen. That brings me to my point. I submit the time has arrived when snore fishermen can supply every pound of fish required. Trawlers are landing vast quantities with the result that the fishermen can only dispose of about 25 per cent of normal production. If shore fishermen were given an opportunity to supply the market the price of fish to them would show a substantial increase, and they would have an opportunity to make, perhaps not an adequate living, but at least some further earnings.
My plea to this government at the present time is to take the steps which, under the order in council they can take to stop the operation of the trawler, so long at least as the shore fishermen are able to supply the demand. I say to hon. members opposite from the information I have received there is plenty of reason to believe that the shore fishermen could supply the demand now obtaining. I do not wish to labour the point, but I submit I have placed before the

government something in the nature of concrete action it should take. I have placed before it something definite which can be done. My hon. friends may consider this something in the nature of a relief measure needed at the present time. Not only would it be a relief measure, but it would be a measure of justice which should be extended under the order in council of this government. If they were to take the action I have suggested they would do much toward relieving the situation in fishing communities.
I repeat my statement of last year, that fishing communities do not want assistance if they can be allowed to work out their own destiny. They would rather work and pay their own way through the natural resources at their disposal, than take a dole, charity or assistance. The present situation is that if something is not done for them their only alternative is to ask the Minister of Labour through the provincial government to do something by way of relief. I say the best relief which can be given to the fishermen of the maritime provinces is an opportunity to help themselves and to enjoy the markets there for them, provided they are given an opportunity to free themselves from the competition of trawlers which, after all, under the legislation now on the statute books, and by the order in council, are only auxiliary to the shore fishermen. Our market is supposed, primarily, to be given to those fishermen.
The general problem of unemployment has been fully covered, and at this time I urge upon the government particularly this one matter, namely the reconsideration of the trawler situation, so that there may be a wiping out of or substantial curtailment in the operation of trawlers. Such change should obtain until the fishermen are able to take up the slack in the market and are able to enjoy to the full the market which, in fact, is really theirs. There can be no question about the foresight, ability or enterprise of our fishermen. All they want is an opportunity on the market free from trawler competition which even hon. members on the government side of the house admit, should be used only for the purpose of implementing the supply in case that supply cannot be filled from other sources.
I am informed that the shore fishermen could supply the present demand, and that the price is very low. If regulations were enforced against the trawlers, no doubt the price would be substantially improved. I urge upon the government in the strongest possible manner the reconsideration of this matter.

Fruit Growing-Mr. W. A. Fraser



Mr. W. A. FRASER (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take only a few moments of the time of the house concerning a matter affecting the fruit growers of the province of Ontario. My remarks at this time arise from a question I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce a few days ago in connection with the export to Great Britain of a cargo of canned fruit and vegetables shipped by Canadian Canners from St. Catharines, Ontario. My question was as follows:
May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether about one-third of a cargo of canned fruit loaded at St. Catharines on a Norwegian tramp was shipped from Medina, New York, and labelled with Canadian Canners labels, to be conveyed by that steamer to the British market.
The reply of the minister on the following day is as follows:
Yesterday the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser), under the guise of a question, made a statement as follows, that:
About one-third of a cargo of canned fruit loaded at St. Catharines on a Norwegian tramp was shipped from Medina, New York, and labelled with Canadian Canners labels, to be conveyed by that steamer to the British market.
In the first place, I wish to say that a statement of that kind, unchallenged and unrefuted, would certainly do serious damage to Canadian trade. I therefore made immediate and very careful inquiries and am able to inform the house that there is not a word of truth in the statement. The goods so canned were the product of Canadian farms, fruit and vegetables, and canned in the factories of Canadian canneries under the inspection and supervision of the inspectors of the Department of Agriculture in accordance with Canned Foods and Meats Act. In every sense this was a Canadian shipment, and I add this, that far from permitting the impression to go abroad that in any way Canada was not playing the game in its trade with the United Kingdom, the fact is that Canada has every reason to be proud both of the magnitude of the shipment and of its contents.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to make this statement: I am very deeply interested not only in the fruit growing industry, but in the canning industry of Ontario, and I would be the last member in the house who would wish in any way to damage their interests. This time however I am not going to ask a question, but I am going to make a statement, or several statements, which I am prepared to substantiate.
Before proceeding I should like to commend and congratulate the representatives of the fruit branch in Canada, and in the old country, for the splendid work they have done in the interests of fruit growers and canners. Let
me go farther, and congratulate the government, inasmuch as I believe that some of the clauses in the agreement with Great Britain which pertain to apples will prove, and are proving, beneficial to the apple growers and the canning industry of the province of Ontario. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I have this objection to make concerning the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in reply to my question. I still maintain I asked a question; I placed before the minister a question asking for information, and based upon the fact that complaints had been lodged with representatives of certain departments in the city of Ottawa that the Canadian Canners are importing, and have been importing pears and other fruits from New York state, paying the duty of two cents per pound, canning them in Canada- as the minister has truly said-under the inspection of the Department of Agriculture, yet, nevertheless canning American or New York state pears and peaches in Canadian canneries, taking advantage of the rebate of 99 per cent and the duty of two cents per pound, and shipping them to the old country market as Canadian products. Now, Mr. Speaker, I make that statement because I believe it is in the interests of the fruit growers, that every hon. member should realize that this practice is being carried on, that the canners of this country are taking advantage of the low price this year of pears in New York state, $10 a ton to be exact, paying the 2 cents a pound duty, securing the rebate, and thus hammering down the price to the fruit growers in western Ontario. That is the point that was behind my question addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I submit that in view of the facts that I am giving to the house-and I can prove what I say-the minister should have considered my question as that of one seeking information, and, in view of the publicity the matter has had through the press of Ontario, he should have been a little more careful about insinuating a lack of interest in the fruit grower.
Now, Mr. Speaker, just one word more. In the interests of the fruit growers and pear producers of western Ontario, regardless of the statements reported in the press as having been made by officials of the Ontario and federal governments and of Canadian canners in connection with this shipment on the Norwegian tramp that I referred to, may I suggest that this government take steps to prevent the fruit growers of Ontario being subject by reason of the drawback to the unfair competition of the extremely low prices

Fruit Growing-Mr. Stevens
existing through over-production in New York state and exporting fruit grown there as a Canadian product. That I submit for the consideration of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce and his colleagues.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I feel it is necessary for me to reply to the further statement made by the hon. member. The hon. member has stated clearly today that he charges that Canadian Canners have been importing foreign pears and shipping them to the United Kingdom, to which hon. members sitting around him cried "shame."


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Always done for years,
under the Liberal government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: His further statement is that Canadian Canners have used this condition for the hammering down of prices to the Ontario growers.


William Alexander Fraser: The hon. gentleman quibbled about it the other day.


James Dew Chaplin: The statement is untrue.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not quibble. The only reason I referred to this the other day and the only reason I refer to it again is this, that whether the hon. gentleman realizes it or not, the language in which he couched his alleged question and the language which he used today is in my opinion calculated to damage Canadian trade with Great Britain, and I think it necessary and desirable that it should be cleared up very definitely. I made careful inquiries into this matter, as I stated, and I have made further inquiries since, and I am advised-and later I will have exact figures to support this-that a comparatively small proportion of the shipment made from Hamilton the other day was composed of canned goods the contents of which were foreign to Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Wait a moment. It has been the practice of the canners in western Ontario and other parts, but chiefly western Ontario, for many years, after the season is over for canning Canadian fruit, to import large quantities of grapefruit, pineapples, and other fruits for canning purposes, thus keeping the canning factories going. No one can have any criticism of that. In addition, it has been the practice of canners in western Ontario to import considerable quantities of pears for canning in Canada, to which no objection can be taken. There is nothing sinister about it, nothing wrong about it, it is a perfectly 
legitimate trade. But it happens that a very small quantity, I am told, if any, found its way into this particular large export shipment to which reference has been made.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is at least some admission.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Another point the hon. gentleman has raised is the question of hammering down prices. I have been supplied with information regarding prices paid, as follows:
We paid Canadian fruit growers this year $40 a ton for Bartlett pears, $40 a ton for peaches, and about $12 a ton for apples. In the western states, from which our chief competition in the British and foreign markets comes, the growers received only $10 a ton for No. 1 pears. $0 a ton for No. 2 pears and $2.50 a ton for apples. New York state prices for Bartlett pears were $20 a ton and $10 a ton for Keefer pears.
Now this will indicate the competition that Canadian canners are confronted with in regard to the packing of goods for the export market. As I have already stated, the company assures me very definitely that this shipment contained but a very small proportion of this fruit.


William Alexander Fraser: What
proportion?


Henry Herbert Stevens: In addition to that the
practice in Canada has been in some cases to import considerable quantities of apples for the purpose of making pectin, which is used in Canada by jam manufacturers and those who put up various preserved fruits, to be added in the packing of these fruits and the manufacture of these jams as a jellying ingredient. It is also exported. This is a fruit ingredient which is quite legitimate and proper and good trade, and there is nothing about it that is in any sense to be criticized. I think, sir, that it is only fair to this company, particularly in view of the cries of hon. gentlemen a moment ago of "shame," when the hon. member was making his statement, it is only fair to a Canadian company that is trying to do business with countries outside of Canada, whether in the empire or out of it, that we should give them a bit of commendation for their efforts in promoting this foreign trade. I deplore more than I oan say any suggestions from influential members on the floor of this 'house regarding t'he practices followed by this and other Canadian companies.


William Alexander Fraser: Will the hon. minister permit a question?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Surely.

Fruit Growing-Mr. Gray


William Alexander Fraser: For my
own information I would like to be quite clear on this point: Is the house to understand that canners may bring in, under the conditions that I have mentioned a few minutes ago, American or foreign pears and ship them under the economic trade agreements and take advantage of the British preference, provided they are canned in this country?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is as clear as day under the law. I will explain as well as I can, subject to not having precise percentages before me and therefore being unable to speak with entire accuracy. Goods manufactured in Canada have access to the British market under the preference if they carry the percentage of Canadian content prescribed by the British regulations. Just what that percentage is in regard to canned fruits I cannot at the moment tell my hon. friend, but I can secure the information. I suggest this however, speaking merely from my own opinion, that it is altogether probable that the value of, say, raw pears, we will take them as an illustration, as compared with the value of the completed article, including the cans, the packing, the shipping and so on, would be in such proportion as to meet that requirement. I expect that it would, and if it does-I will put the "if" in there-is it not legitimate that they should be so shipped?


Mr. R. W. GRAY (West Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, on this important matter I do not propose to allow the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) again to think he has given this house the last word. On November 23 the minister gave the house what he intended to be the last word with respect to this matter, which was brought up by my hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Fraser) who was not in the house at the time and who, at the earliest possible moment, brought to the attention of the house the true facts. Let me read again the reply as given by the minister on Wednesday of this week:
Yesterday the hon. member for Northumberland Qlr. Fraser), under the guise of a question, made a statement as follows. . . .
Any hon. member reading the question of the hon. member for Northumberland will realize that it has not even the suggestion of being a statement; it was a straight question asked of the minister by a member of this house. The minister went on:
In the first place, I wish to say that a statement of that kind, unchallenged and unrefuted, would certainly do serious damage to Canadian trade. I therefore made immediate and very careful inquiries . . .
The minister made immediate and careful inquiries and gave the house what he found as a result.
. . . and am able to inform the house that there is not a word of truth in the statement.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce, representing the trade of Canada, rises in his place and tells the hon. member for Northumberland that he was not telling the truth when he said that a portion of the goods were brought in from New York state, canned here and sent out under the guise of Canadian canned products. Now the minister has turned around; he says that some part of the shipment was brought in from New York state. He does not give the proportion; he leaves the impression that it was a very small part. Let me continue:
The goods so canned were the product of Canadian farms . . .
May I ask the minister if that was correct?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Absolutely.


Ross Wilfred Gray: They were the product of New' York state farms, brought in here and canned and sent to the United Kingdom under the guise of Canadian fruit. The British have already stated that they will not allow our wheat to proceed through United States ports except under a through label, and I ask the minister if he expects the British to say we are playing the game when we bring in New York pears, can them in Canadian factories and ship them out as the product of Canadian farms.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Talking nonsense.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Talking nonsense? The minister was talking nonsense not only today but on Wednesday as well, w'hen he said there was not a word of truth in the statement made by the hon. member for Northumberland. Let me tell my hon. friend that lie has not brought much credit on the Department of Trade and Commerce, over which he presides.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


James Dew Chaplin: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at one o'clock we were discussing a matter covered by a question asked by the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser), a few days ago. I must say that we have listened to the tears which have rolled and fallen from the eyes of certain hon. members regarding the fruit business-


Mr. NEILL:: How do you listen to tears?

Fruit Growing-Mr. Chaplin


James Dew Chaplin: You could almost hear
them, they fell in a stream. These hon. gentlemen become interested in fruit only when they are in opposition. I should like to refer for a moment to the actions taken by hon. members opposite in connection with rebates. From their remarks one would think that rebates came into effect only recently whereas this legislation has been on the statute books for a considerable time. Why did they not object to it before? I have sat on both sides of the house, I have objected to certain rebates, but not one hon. member opposite would support me. The system is wrong, but hon. members opposite did not attempt to correct it.
The question asked by the hon. member for Northumberland was as follows:
May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether about one-third of a cargo of canned fruit loaded at St. Catharines on a Norwegian tramp was shipped from Medina, New York, and labelled with Canadian Canners labels, to be conveyed by that steamer to the British market.
What does the house think of a question like that? That is simply making a statement; the hon. gentleman either knew or did not know that that stuff came from New York. In fact, it never came from Medina.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He wanted to hurt the
country.


James Dew Chaplin: It was done with the intention of harming the industry.
The hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray), seems to have become suddenly sympathetic towards the farmers. He referred to loss which must accrue to the farmer because, forsooth, pears and peaches were allowed to come in.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Will the hon. member read
article 1 of the agreement between Great Britain and Canada?


James Dew Chaplin: I do not intend to read
it just now.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Will the hon. member read it before he finishes?


James Dew Chaplin: No more than I will read the hon. member's speech.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I shall not read yours.


James Dew Chaplin: Tears came into the hon. gentleman's eyes because of the fruit farmers.


An hon. MEMBER:: Crocodile tears.


James Dew Chaplin: Crocodile tears, yes. I
should like to ask the hon. member how many Bartlett pears or peaches are grown in his riding?


Ross Wilfred Gray: How many acres of land does the hon. member own in New York state?


James Dew Chaplin: Not one. I answer the
hon. member but he does not answer me. I ask the hon. member for Northumberland: How many Bartlett pears and peaches are grown in your riding? The hon. member for West Lambton was a member of this house in previous years when this condition was a good deal worse than it is today.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Read the agreement; it states, "grown, produced or manufactured in Canada."


James Dew Chaplin: "Grown, produced or
manufactured in Canada." Does not this come under the heading of manufactured in Canada? While the hon. member is attempting to divert me from this subject, I should like to ask him: If these rebates were not allowed, how could the country export anything in the way of rubber, silk or cotton goods? It would be impossible to export if such goods were considered as coming from the countries where they were originally produced. Hon. members tried to convince the house that these goods had been canned in the United States and that all that was to be done in Canada was the labelling. If that is not the inference to be drawn from the question asked, I will eat the question.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Hypocrisy.


James Dew Chaplin: Let me tell the hon. member something about hypocrisy in connection with his own actions. He knows that under the Liberal regime the department which had charge of customs permitted the duty paid on automobile parts coming into the country to be considered as part of the Canadian content.


William Alexander Fraser: That has nothing to do with these empire trade agreements.


James Dew Chaplin: Who said anything about rebates now? Under the British arrangement any goods which can qualify as -being of fifty, and sometimes sixty per cent Canadian content, are considered as products of this country. Many goods come in from the old country which are not more than fifty per cent English, and yet they are allowed to come in under the agreement.
Fruit is allowed to come into Canada after paying a duty and the Canadian Canners are allowed under the law to obtain a rebate when such goods are exported. This is exactly the same system as applies to other manufacturers; no more consideration is given

Fruit Growing-Mr. Malcolm
to the fruit canners than is given to the manufacturers of other products. In spite of these facts, hon. members have tried to make it appear as though the farmers of this country were being injured.


Ross Wilfred Gray: May I ask the hon. member a question?


James Dew Chaplin: Sit down a minute; the hon. member had his say and he will not answer any questions asked of him.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member for West Lambton was permitted to -make his speech without interruption from any part of the nouse.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I merely asked the hon. member if I could ask him a question. He has refused and I am sitting down.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is out of order to interrupt a speaker in this way. When a member speaking is asked whether or not he will permit a question, he signifies his willingness to be interrupted by taking his seat; when he does not do so he indicates that he does not wish to be interrupted.


James Dew Chaplin: The facts are that this fruit was packed in Canada, the cans were made in Canada and certain work was done in Canada. In some instances fruit was allowed to come in.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Trucked in.


James Dew Chaplin: No, not trucked in either. The hon. member is very free with interruptions. He is talking about something of which he knows nothing, and usually people talk the loudest when they know the least.


Ernest Lapointe: That is hardly in order either.


James Dew Chaplin: The fruit business is of a seasonal nature. Take peaches, for example. This fruit is on the market for only five or six weeks, and the same thing applies to Bartlett pears. What did the present government do?


Ross Wilfred Gray: What did the Minister of Trade and Commerce do?


James Dew Chaplin: Will the hon. member try to be quiet just for once? This is the same old calf story.
The fruit business is seasonal. The fruit is available only in its ripened state; it cannot be kept even in cold storage for more than a week or two. When the season is over, no more fruit is available. In order to protect the fruit farmers of this country during the season, this government has put an embargo upon fruit coming in from the United States.
The previous government promised to do this, but they did not. When the former Minister of Finance, Mr. Dunning, introduced his budget he told the house that it was impossible to put a seasonal tariff upon fruit. Six days afterwards he did introduce a seasonal tariff but it proved to be unworkable. This government has a tariff which is workable. Fruit is allowed to enter the country only after our own fruit has gone off the market; the embargo is not lifted until the ripened fruit season is over. The Canadian canners pay twice as much for Canadian fruit as they would have to pay for American fruit, but they are not permitted to buy American fruit while our own is on the market. That is something the opposition never did for the farmer and never would do. Heaven knows we asked them often enough to do it.
I have no interest in this matter; I am not interested in any canning company, but I hate to see men get up in this house and talk until the cows come home upon a subject about which they know nothing. That has happened on more than one occasion. I come from a county where there are over twenty-five canning factories; the fruit industry of Lincoln county is as large as if not larger than that in any other county in Canada. I know something of conditions there, and something of conditions in the trade, and when one sees members get up and talk in this fashion it is absolutely sickening.


Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (North Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) has certainly made a few facts abundantly clear. He spoke quite correctly with respect to the fact that Canada's export trade in manufactured products was not confined entirely to the production and further processing of Canadian goods and that much of our export trade was built up on raw materials which came from other parts of the empire and other parts of the world. He mentioned the rubber industry. It is true we enjoy within the British Empire considerable export trade in rubber products, the cotton of course, coming from either Egypt or the United States and the rubber from Malaysia. We enjoy a considerable market in other countries for canned fruits and vegetables and in the past, in order to have continuity of operation of our canneries, as the hon. member for Lincoln has said, we have permitted the importation of fruits and vegetables for canning in Canadian factories. I do not think anyone in the house disagrees in general with the principle of trying to have continuity of work in an industry where the Canadian product is seasonal, nor
Fruit Growing-Mr. Malcolm

do I think anyone objects particularly to the importation of fruits which are not grown in Canada, such as grapefruit, oranges and fruits of that type. This at least gives the Canadian workman an occupation during a season of the year when the Canadian product is not available for canning. I think, however, the hon. member for Lincoln was wrong in regard to his statement on embargoes. I do not think there has ever been an embargo placed on fruit for canning purposes. I may be mistaken.


James Dew Chaplin: The hon. member is mistaken. I know there has been.


James Malcolm: Well, I was of that
opinion, and I stand corrected if the hon. member is quite sure of the fact.


James Dew Chaplin: I know it.


James Malcolm: But there is another
point to which I should like to make slight reference. We have made some agreements with the British Empire and it has been heralded, I think rather broadly across this continent, that by these agreements the Canadian producers are to benefit. The Canadian producers will benefit in many instances; they certainly will benefit on raw fruits such as apples which have a preference in the British market. I have before me an article which appeared in the Financial Post on November 18 and the heading tells the story just about as clearly as the hon. member for Lincoln has told it. The article is headed:
Canadian canned fruits taken by British markets. Ocean steamship at St. Catharines takes entire cargo of pears and peaches canned by Canadian canners.
That is a very careful statement. The nouse will observe it does not say that the steamship takes an entire cargo of Canadian pears and peaches canned by Canadian canners. In the address which was made and to which this article was referring, the same being made by one of the officers of Canadian Canners, I note the speaker has been careful to make himself clear that the fruit was canned in Canada and not that it was of Canadian origin. I wish to make only one observation and it is this, that so far as the agreements are concerned, the statement of the hon. member for Lincoln clears up the point abundantly. The agreements do not give to Canadian producers of fruit for canning purposes any preference whatever in the British market. My hon. friend has made that quite clear. Certainly the agreement gives us a preference in the British market for fruit canned in Canada.
]Mr. Malcolm.]


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought we had finished these agreements.


James Malcolm: I think my right hon.
friend will let me proceed when I am agreeing with the hon. member for Lincoln.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was not in the chamber at the time that the hon. member for Lincoln was speaking, but these matters having been voted upon and disposed of, having been sent to the Senate and passed by it, are we now going to waste the time of the house at the rate of S15,000 a day on this?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I rise to a point of order.


James Malcolm: I shall not delay the
house a minute, because my speech is almost finished.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. member was rising to a point of order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser) this afternoon brought up a grievance as any hon. member has a right to do on the motion to go into supply. Any hon. member has the right to discuss any grievance on the motion to go into supply.


James Malcolm: In deference to the
Prime Minister's suggestion, which I think is quite reasonable, I shall not delay the house. I think we are all out of order, but as I am answering the hon. member for Lincoln, I think my right hon. friend will allow me a minute.


James Dew Chaplin: I was only answering
somebody else.


James Malcolm: The speech of the hon. member for Lincoln is quite in accord with the facts in this instance, and it clears up any doubt in the mind of the house and should clear up any doubt in the minds of the people that any preference we are receiving in the British market for canned fruits and vegetables will be of benefit to Canadian labour and Canadian canners but will be of no direct benefit to Canadian fruit growers.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: If the house
will permit me, I should like to decide the point of order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was
withdrawn.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I rule that the discussion which has taken place is out of order.

Unemployment-Mr. Euler


UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: In the hope that the fruit industry will survive the little storm which has raged so violently in the house for a short time, I desire to discuss in a more quiet atmosphere a question which is of great importance to the country, namely, that of unemployment.
I do so now with some embarrassment because I hesitate to prolong the proceedings and delay hon. members in returning to their homes.
In a consideration of the question of unemployment there are two factors which are outstanding in the minds of all members of the house: first, the duty of parliament and of the people of Canada to care for those hundreds of thousands of people who are not any longer able to care for themselves; and second, and this is infinitely more difficult, the necessity of finding the causes and devising a remedy for the position in which we find ourselves.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) a few days ago gave to the house the information that there are now dependents on the bounty of the people of Canada no fewer than 850.000 people. That in itself constitutes to my mind a tragedy. Although I was aware, like other hon. members of the house, that there was a great deal of distress in the country, I was shocked at the magnitude of those figures. In view of the fact that in Canada there is plenty and the means of producing a great deal more, and that the same condition obtains in almost every civilized country of the world, it is a reflection not only upon civilization but upon Christianity, if you will, that such a condition should have arisen and should have continued to this day, with no real relief in prospect.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) some days ago said that we were moving toward a new economic order of things. I wish I knew exactly what was in his mind when he used those words. I believe he is right, but I wonder if he could explain to the house just what the nature of that movement is, and whether it is controlled, whether it is controllable, or whether we are merely drifting in a direction the end of which we do not know and cannot foresee.	_
The question of unemployment may fairly be divided into two main phases: First, the question of relief itself, which has nothing to do with the cure of unemployment; and secondly, the cure of the condition in which we now find ourselves.
So far as relief is concerned, every member of the house will join with the Minister of 53719-102
Labour when he says that there shall not be any man, woman or child in this country who will not be supplied with food, clothing and shelter. That may necessitate the taking from those who have and giving to those who have not. So far the debate on unemployment has confined itself mainly to methods of giving relief, which has nothing whatever to do with the cure of unemployment itself. Last year and the year before the method that was adopted by the government, in accordance with the policy of the Prime Minister that he was not going to hand out doles but proposed to give work to all who needed it, was this: Federally, to proceed with the construction of public works; provincially, helping some of the provinces, for example, in connection with the construction of a national highway, which project I imagine was not entirely as successful as it might have been; and municipally, through assistance received from the province and from the dominion a great deal of work was anticipated, that is, construction which might have been postponed for some years but was proceeded with then in order to provide employment. The difficulty was that the municipalities were called upon to spend such large sums of money that they have now arrived at a position where they can no longer pursue that course, and so, according to the Prime Minister, we have a request from the municipalities through the provinces, and from the provinces themselves that this year the relief shall take the form of direct assistance. I have no great fault to find with that, although of course I might say to the Prime Minister that he has been obliged to change his course. I might say to the Prime Minister in that regard, and to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) in connection with the debate that we had, that it is never safe for any man, least of all a public man, to make statements or promises that extend too far into the future, because conditions may arise necessitating a change of course of action.
We have now entered upon a new policy, a policy which I believe is hardly justified, and that is the policy, and I say it with some hesitancy, of making cash loans and cash advances to private corporations. My hon. friends will all understand to what I allude. I have no objection to means being provided so that men may be given employment, but I would draw to the attention of the government the fact that they are establishing a rather dangerous precedent. Generally I am not much given to considering precedents, even though my lawyer friends may be; but I think the government is placing itself in

Unemployment-Mr. Elder

rather an unenviable position when it advances help to one private corporation, which after all is conducted for profit, and which precedent will undoubtedly subject the government to demands, perhaps just as fair, from many hundreds of other sources which the government, I imagine, cannot concede.
I shall not say very much on the question of direct relief because it is largely a matter of efficient administration, to be handled on a non-partisan basis, with common sense and humanitarianism, and at that I am willing to leave it. But the question of direct relief has nothing whatever to do with curing the causes of unemployment. I propose to deal with the question, if I might say so, in the larger sense.
There are those who now say-we on this side have always said it-that unemployment and the condition in which we now find ourselves is largely attributable to world causes and that it obtains throughout the civilized world. That is true. But it does not follow that as a nation we cannot take certain steps which will at least alleviate or ameliorate the present condition. This I think we may as well lay down as a basic requirement before the world can return to prosperity: it must escape from the tremendous debt resulting from the war and in which perhaps our friends in the United States constitute the chief and deciding factor. These debts must be reduced or cancelled, and more than thait the world must get away from the spirit of war, that spirit which today, despite the League of Nations which was organized for the prevention of war, in Europe alone prompts the spending in preparation for another war of no less than about $5,000,000,000.
There is another condition of which we must rid ourselves. I refer to that feeling of patriotism, or that false doctrine-yes, I will call it a false doctrine-which leads nations to surround themselves with unscalable tariff walls. That is done in many instances with the idea of patriotism, which expresses itself in that way. Not only that, but in many countries patriotism seems to imply not only a love of one's own country but a hatred of or antagonism towards another. I said a minute ago that these are world conditions which must be dealt with. When one looks upon Europe today, considers the temper of European countries and of countries in South America which are on the verge of war, one is at once aware of the difficulties with which the world has to cope before improved conditions may be brought about.

I had intended to touch upon the problem from a Canadian standpoint, and what can be done by Canada itself to relieve ourselves from the excessive condition of unemployment around us. To my hon. friends in the corner of the house may I say that for about three years, since the beginning of the depression, I have listened to them and learned to regard them with a good deal of admiration. Sometimes I have envied them their attitude of certainty. Lately, when I have listened as they have given to the house the benefit of their advice as to what could be done to relieve us from the conditions under which we are suffering-and I am not saying this in any critical sense-I have regarded them with a feeling of inferiority, for I did not feel so sure as they do as to the remedy. However, when I learned two or three weeks ago thait a greater man, perhaps, than most of us, Sir Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, had, figuratively speaking, thrown up his hands and admitted that he did not know what to do, I felt that my self respect had been more or less restored. That does not mean after all that we should do likewise, but it does mean that he confessed his ignorance and humility just as I am doing now, by inference.
I feel, after all, that we might discuss in a more or less hopeful vein some of the things we could do. There is one matter which has been mentioned frequently by hon. members in the corner of the house and in connection with which I must again admit a lack of knowledge and, if you like, an ignorance-I am referring to the matter of currency reform. All I should like to say in that connection is that when we have a condition, under the system as it now obtains, whereby a man who three years ago created a certain debt now has to pay it three times over, having regard to the value he receives for his commodities, then certainly something must be wrong. What the remedy is I do not know. Our friends in the corner of the house recommend inflation. Sometimes I am not quite sure just what inflation means, and I imagine that many hon. members in the house, if they speak their minds, would admit a similar lack of knowledge.
Perhaps the Prime Minister has now come to the conclusion that a certain degree of inflation may be advisable. With the issue of $35,000,000 more of currency I believe inflation has been started at least in some degree. Further, the other day the Prime Minister admitted something I believe he had never admitted before, namely that we are no longer on the gold standard.

Unemployment-Mr. Eider


Mr. RHODES:: Oh yes, he had.


William Daum Euler: If I may say so, my mind is quite open with regard to the matter and, if the Prime Minister and his government should see fit to enter upon a reasonably controlled degree of inflation, I am inclined to believe that I should support them.
Another matter which has been brought to the attention of the house by the labour members is that concerning shorter hours, a condition closely linked up with the introduction of labour saving machinery. Although we term such machinery "labour saving machinery," perhaps it should not be so called.
I may be wrong in that respect, but I fear that often such machines have not worked out entirely to the benefit of those operating them. Certainly in every constituency which is industrially organized, such as my own city of Kitchener, the introduction of labour saving machinery has literally replaced thousands of men. I am not opposed to the introduction or the development of machinery. I do not believe we should discontinue its use.
I do not believe it is good for a man to labour from early morning until late at night, ten hours, nine hours or even eight hours a day, if machinery can be made to do the work the man formerly did. I believe it would now be possible, if men were put to work with the machinery at our disposal, and through the medium of machines which will be invented in the future, to produce by four or five hours of labour each day sufficient to meet the requirements of all the people. Under those conditions it would be right for the working man to enjoy the leisure which undoubtedly would be his, a leisure which could be devoted to recreation or amusement, or for the benefit of body and soul, if you wish to put it that way. I believe in that. I have no doubt that one of the remedies and one of the results which must come from the introduction of machinery will be shorter hours of labour. I realize that the introduction of machinery and shorter hours presents many problems, some perhaps international, but at this time I shall not dwell upon them.
Then, there is another remedy which the present government has tried with, I suggest, no satisfactory results; I refer to extremely high tariffs. With that point I shall not detain the house long. My position in relation to tariffs is well known. I am not in favour of extremely high tariffs, and I believe even now members of the government will admit that as a factor in the cure of unemployment the introduction of extremely high tariffs has not 53719-102J
been a success. It has not been successful in creating greater purchasing power within the country. Further, since higher tariffs have been in force our foreign trade has declined from a position of fifth in world trade to that of seventh.


Mr. McLURE:: Would the hon. member be satisfied if the farmers of Canada worked, only four or five hours a day?


William Daum Euler: I should be very happy if they could operate their farms in that way. Perhaps it can be worked out. I should not attempt to do so, however, because I am not an expert. On the other hand, if they were able to do that I should be pleased, because I do not play favourites.
I was going to suggest that it might be possible to do something by way of controlling production. By that I do not imply that there is overproduction. I believe there will never be overproduction so long as the wants of every individual are not satisfied. I was directing my attention to another phase of the matter, and thinking particularly of the organization of industries for which there is^ no necessity. I refer particularly to overexpansion of industry. The example which: occurs to my mind is that of the manufacture of paper. For many years there was sufficient equipment in Canada for all the business in: this commodity we could get, and yet there-were people, men who were not "paper people," but promoters, who went into the field, organized new companies and built new mills which since have gone into the hands of the receivers, and the investors' money has been lost. The suggestion I was going to make to my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and it is more or less casual, is whether it would not be in the interests of the Canadian people that the Department of Trade and Commerce should have a branch which would devote itself to the acquisition of knowledge and information with regard to all lines of business, and particularly manufacture, in Canada; so that the investing public might have some means of ascertaining whether the business in which they are asked to invest their money has any chance for success. It might be possible to go even further, to work out a scheme with the provinces whereby if upon investigation it were shown that there really is not room for the investment of further capital in any particular line of business, a charter could be refused.
Then we have the remedy-or rather not a cure but a palliative-of unemployment

Unemployment-Mr. Euler
insurance. I favour unemployment insurance, as I think does every member. The Prime Minister has declared himself in favour of such a measure. He stated that it was delayed last year until compilation oould be made from the census reports. I think that time has now arrived, and I suggest to him that the government concern itself with the working out of an adequate system of unemployment insurance.
I wish to make another suggestion, which is not original, but of which I read a few days ago in the Saturday Evening Post. It might be called the rationing of work; to ration work just as food and fuel were rationed during the war. I will read a short extract and leave it as a suggestion to the government for inquiry.- The article is headed:
Job Spreading by Job Sharing
It goes on to say;
Now that the share-the-work movement is in operation from coast to coast and, has set up a regional organization in each federal reserve district, it cannot be premature to direct attention to the accomplishment it already has to its credit and to point out its possibilities as an engine for preventing the further spread of unemployment.
The basic idea of tiding the unemployed over present hardships by employing more hands for fewer hours a day or fewer days a week is simplicity itself; but its application to scores of differing trades and industries, each of which has requirements inseparable from its nature, is anything but simple.
The specifications for any sound plan for hastening business recovery demand that it be to the common advantage of three overlapping but still different groups,-the employers, the employed, and the general public. The share-the-work movement appears to meet this threefold requirement, and its sponsors seem fully warranted in declaring that it helps the employer because work spreading hastens business recovery; that it is to the advantage of the worker because job sharing makes for job security; that the public benefits because spreading employment means spreading spending power and the feeling of confidence and security that follow in their train.
I appreciate that that is not a cure, but it might be of some assistance.
Now I am going to venture for a moment upon a subject my attitude concerning which may be misinterpreted. If so, so much the worse for me. It rests upon what has become more or less a platitude, that while the world has solved the problem of production, and can produce sufficient for every man, woman and child, especially in Canada, it has not solved the problem of distribution; in other words, that which is produced is concentrated more or less in a few hands. I discussed this question a few days ago with one of my friends, and when I stated my thought with

regard to it he said: "That is the Karl Marx doctrine." Well, I must admit, perhaps to my discredit, that I have never read the works of Karl Marx. But this theorem or principle does appeal to me; that wealth, generally speaking, is produced almost entirely by the application of labour to natural resources, whether it be on the farm, in the factory, the mine, the stream or the forest. I make due allowance for management, transportation and so on-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: And capital.


William Daum Euler: Yes, I will include capital in a reasonable way. If then it is found that there are great accumulations of wealth in a few hands, and poverty and distress obtain among the workers who have produced it, surely it is fair to assume that the spread between the man who has and the man who has produced is greater than it should be; in other words that capital is receiving too large a share of that which is produced.


Ernest Lapointe: Take care of the iron
heel!


William Daum Euler: We are faced with the problem of better distribution. I am inclined to think that hardly a member in this house does not believe in the accuracy and fairness of what I have said. But how are we to obtain better distribution? That of course is a difficult question. There are those who say- I think we have some in the corner-that we ought to scrap the present capitalistic system. I am not here to advocate that. Others say we should modify the system we now have, and I believe that at least for the present we ought to try that out. That we must do something I am convinced. Whether it shall take the form of taxation of profits, of profit sharing in industry, which already obtains in some industries managed by far-seeing and humanitarian leaders, I do not know. I read some time ago-perhaps my hon. friends in the corner will be interested in this from the Labour press, although they probably read it long before I did-an editorial in a Labour magazine. It said that the working people were already convinced that socialism is coming, in fact were so fully convinced of it that they were sitting more or less with folded hands waiting for it to come. The article went on to say that the editor himself was not in favour of the application of socialism now, because people were not ready for it. He hoped that the capitalistic system, which he seemed to think was more or less staggering. ought to be restored for the time being, and in the interval between the present and

Unemployment-Mr. Euler
the coming of socialism the Labour people and the public generally should prepare themselves for the duty of making the system operative when the proper time arrived. Now,
I am not a socialist, but the mere fact that a man believes in certain principles in which socialists also believe does not necessarily make him a socialist. Here again my selfrespect is restored when I hear men like Sir Josiah Stamp state in a speech which he made in the parliamentary restaurant that perhaps the remedy for the ills from which we were suffering lies somewhere between our present system and that which they have today in Russia. I should hardly have dared to go as far as that, but if I did I would be in pretty good company; I could cite other prominent economists also. The word "socialism" has no particular terrors for me, although, as I say, one's attitude is apt to be misinterpreted. I read the other day, or someone was telling me, about a book which in the time of the Czar someone attempted to introduce into Russia. The title of the book, I think, was The Dynamics of Sociology, and the officers at the border refused to let the book enter because they thought the word "dynamics" indicated that it had something to do with dynamite and the blowing up of the present system, and "sociology" indicated that it was to teach socialism. I cite that as showing that we have a fear of something just because of its name when as a matter of fact we have the thing already.


Ernest Lapointe: A fear of words.


William Daum Euler: We allow ourselves to be
handicapped by the fear of words. We have in Canada a system that is socialistic in a certain sense. The municipality from which I come owns the waterworks, the electric light plant, the gas plant, the street railway-


Ernest Lapointe: And liquor?


William Daum Euler: No, not in the municipality I come from. I can see the direction in which my hon. friend's mind is running. But we have all these things, and I will say to my hon. friends in this house in whose localities the principle of public ownership has not made the same progress as it has in mine, which is of course, the most progressive community in Canada, that it has been extremely successful. These services have been given the people of that community at a low cost and in just as efficient a manner as they could have been given by any private business. Provincially we have the great hydro system which in the past has been a great boon to the people of Ontario, and which I hope will carry on in the same way
in future. We also own a railway running from the city of Toronto to James bay. Let me say this also, though I am afraid it will not meet with the approval of some hon. members of this house:	The success of the
hydro in Ontario would not have been possible but for the fact that it is a monopoly.
I have no patience with those newspapers and individuals who constantly say that we want no monopoly, either public or private; that all monopolies are bad. I have said before in this chamber that a public monopoly loses the sinister features of a private monopoly, because it is conducted on an entirely different basis and for an entirely different purpose. The purpose of private ownership, of course, is profit, while the purpose of public ownership is service at as low a cost as possible. The inducement for the abuse of privileges in a public monopoly is not present as it is in a private monopoly. We also have in Ontario, as well as in every other province in the dominion, the public control of the traffic in liquor, and I am inclined to believe that this works a great deal better than was the case when it was in private hands. In the dominion we have had the post office for many years; that is a socialistic activity, if you like to call it that, and we have the Canadian National Railways.	.


Mr. EDWARDS (Waterloo):: That is a
tough one.


William Daum Euler: I suppose hon. gentlemen
will say, as my colleague from South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards) says, that this is a tough one. I do not intend to say much about the Canadian National Railways, though I am very much interested in them. If the national railways are in difficulties they are in just about the same condition as their great private competitor, and I think those difficulties are largely the result of the failure of private ownership. In my opinion-and here I know I am treading dangerous ground-if the national railways had the same monopoly of the railway business that the hydro has in that business in Ontario, we would have a successful system today.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Under the
same kind of management, perhaps.


William Daum Euler: Under a good government
it would have that management. Some eight years ago, Mr. Speaker, I had the temerity to make the suggestion in this house that it would be worth while for the government of Canada-and it was a Liberal government at that time-to make a canvass of the whole railway situation, with a possible view of the
Unemployment-Mr. Euler

amalgamation of the two great roads. I made the statement then, and I had it on very good authority, that we could save at least $75,000,000 yearly by the cutting out of wasteful competition. Not long ago, before the Royal Commisison on Railways and Transportation, Mr. Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, stated that a saving of $65,000,000 a year could be effected by the amalgamation of the two roads, and if that had been done at that time, in the ten years that have elapsed we -could have saved possibly three-quarters of a billion dollars, or about one-third of the *national debt.
I had not intended to go into this matter very deeply, Mr. Speaker, but as I said at the outset of my remarks, it is never very safe to make too definite statements, especially if you are in public life, or too definite promises as to what you may do in the future, and when I say that I am not referring to the promises made by the Prime Minister in regard to unemployment. I am referring to the slogan, if you like to call it that, which the Prime Minister nailed to the mast during his campaign. In connection with the railways he said, "Amalgamation never; competition ever." I believe that before very long the Prime Minister will have to reverse that slogan, because if we continue as we are going at present in connection with the two railways, with the consequent waste, this country will not be able to bear the burden.
I am out of order, perhaps, but I should like to make just a reference to the recommendations made by the royal commission. They advocate compulsory cooperation. This may be the only thing that can be done, but I will say that I have no great faith in compulsory cooperation; the two things just do not go together. I say further that in the future we will find the old slogan "competition is the life of trade" out of date; in certain respects at least competition is the death of trade and of prosperity. I hope that in future the slogan of Canadians and of the world will be cooperation rather than competition.
The question now is how far we can go in the direction of these socialistic tendencies, if you like to so call them. I am not prepared to say. It has been suggested that we should have a national bank, and that may be a good suggestion. It has been suggested also, and I am rather inclined to favour the suggestion, that we should at least mutualize our life insurance companies, and there may be many other directions in which we might proceed. The point I want to make, however, is that fMr. Euler.]
I believe some modification of our present system is necessary. We may survive the present difficulties; after a while we may turn that mythical corner of which we have heard so much, around which we will find prosperity. I do not desire to be pessimistic, but I am a little afraid it may be some time before we turn that corner. Whether or not that is so, however, some time later we will have another period of depression, and that will happen again and again unless we modify our system.
Some people think depressions are absolutely necessary under our capitalistic system. I do not believe that, but if it be so, then so much the worse for our system. In the olden days people believed that epidemics of smallpox, yellow fever and other diseases were dispensations of Providence, but science has overcome those epidemics. It does seem to me that it should not be regarded as inevitable that these alternate periods of depression and prosperity should exist in a country such as Canada. I feel that whether or not we see the way clear, at least we should make some effort to find a remedy. If there is one thing in the public mind at this time-and this applies not only to the people who have not very much by way of money or possessions but also to every member of this house, as it applies to myself- it is the constant fear of the future. We do not know what the future will bring, yet we are living in a country and in a world that can and should produce enough for everyone if that production is properly distributed. Surely there must be men of ability in this country, men of good will if you like, men like those who accomplished wonders during the development of the world's civilization, who can find a remedy, so that we should not regard ourselves as impotent to make further advances in the direction we desire to go.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, although I have made one or two tentative suggestions which possibly may be quite valueless, I admit, that I do not know the exact course of procedure which will bring about that which we all desire. During last session the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) proposed a resolution providing for the appointment of a committee or commission which would look into questions of this kind and present its findings and advice to the government. As I recall it, that resolution was passed by the house and accepted1 by the government, and I would suggest that action be taken along the lines suggested. Hon. members opposite, including the Prime Minister, have asked for

C.N.R.-Snow Removal from Gaspe
tbe cooperation of members of parliament in the difficulties through which we are passing. The Prime Minister has a right to make that request; I think it is our duty to extend that cooperation just so far as may be possible, and I was going to make this suggestion entirely on my own responsibility, unless the Prime Minister accepts the one I made with regard to the resolution adopted last year: the Prime Minister might very well consult with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the leaders of the parties to my left in connection with the appointing of a committee. This committee could consist of certain hon. members of this house, augmented and supplemented1 by men in the country from whom we could obtain information or inspiration and advice. This committee would have the power of investigation and of forming settled opinions so that some sort of program might be drafted which would tnable us to proceed in the promotion of that condition to which we would like to return or which we would like to reestablish. It might be found that such a committee would prove to be of real assistance to the Prime Minister when he goes to the next world conference or succeeding world conference upon the deliberations and recommendations of which may depend the prosperity of the world in general and Canada in particular.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, under the privilege which we have under this motion to go into supply, I wish for a moment to comment upon the publicity given to the evidence of Mr. Appleton, head of the Atlantic region of the Canadian National Railways, before the Duff commission. The summary of this evidence appears in the Montreal Gazette. In dealing with the various branch lines throughout the maritime provinces, Mr. Appleton made the statement that one year it cost a million dollars to remove the snow from the Gaspe line. This statement is so preposterous that I cannot believe it was made by Mr. Appleton. I have been requested by the people in my district to correct any impression which may have been created in respect to this particular line. Snow removal upon this line costs no more than it does on other lines. Some winters we have very little snow, at times the first snow not coming until the middle of January. I think it is only fair to the people in this district to correct any impression which may have gone abroad that this particular branch line of the Canadian National Railways is being maintained at such a tremendous cost.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF

Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, for two or three days we have been discussing the questions of unemployment and farm relief. These two questions are somewhat related and until we can bring about a reasonable return to the farmers for the expenditure and cost of production, we will have an unemployment problem upon our hands. In anything I say this afternoon I do not wish to be understood as condemning any policy because it has not brought about one hundred per cent results nor in advocating anything as a cure-all for our ills. It has been said again and again that the farmers are chronic kickers. There are always some people who are failures and who will complain even in the best of times, there are others who can make a success in the hardest of times and living under the worst of conditions.
The question of the return which the farmer receives for the produce he places upon the markets of this country or of the world has been studied scientifically and thoroughly by the Department of Agriculture. I should like to refer to certain figures which appear in bulletin number 159 issued by this department in 1932, and dealing with the cost of producing farm crops in the prairie provinces. This study of the costs of production was made with the idea of ascertaining just where the farmers could reduce their costs. The farmer must market his products in competition with the world, and even though he sells on the home market, it is necessary that costs of production should be reduced if at all possible. I intend to refer to the cost of producing wheat given in this bulletin, and then set over against those costs the prices received by the farmer. This study has been very thorough and I do not think anything like it has ever been attempted before, at least I have not come across anything as thorough. The study was made in cooperation with eight experimental farms, by thirty-one dominion illustration stations in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta and in addition a survey was made by private individuals in cooperation with the officials of the department. The cost of producing wheat for the period 1923 to 1930 is given as 64 cents per bushel for wheat after fallow. In the second year after wheat, the cost is given as 75 cents per bushel. These figures were obtained from the dominion experimental farms. In the case of the illustration stations in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, where there was a check of thirty-one stations, the cost of producing wheat after summer-fallow was 63 cents per bushel, and the cost for the second year after fallow, 76
1616	COMMONS
Farm Relief-Mr. Kennedy (Peace River)
cents per bushel. On private farms the costs were 78 cents and $1.12 respectively. If I am correct in my figuring, the average cost of producing wheat up to 1930 was 65 cents per bushel.
It may be said that the cost of producing since 1930 has been reduced but I do not think that the reduction amounts to very much. The farm at Rosthern secured the lowest cost of production, the figures being as follows:
Use of land	$3	00Seed at $1.18 per bushel	l	47Machinery	1	35Twine at 15 cents per pound	0	39Manual labour at 25 cents per	hour..	1	13Horse labour at 8 cents per hour..	..	1	18
One-third cost of summer-fallow.. ..248 Threshing at 12 cents per bushel.. .. 2 70
This gives a total cost per acre of $13.70 which based on a yield of 22.5 bushels per acre, gives a cost per bushel of 61 cents. If we revise these figures downward and estimate the seed at about 50 cents per bushel, twine at about 9 cents per pound, labour at about $1 per day and threshing at 5 cents per bushel, leaving the other costs at the level of 1930, we get a cost per bushel of about 46 cents. That does not allow for anything over and above the actual costs.
I find thait the average return to the farmer in the three prairie provinces for the year 1930 was 44 cents per bushel. In other w'ords, they lost that year about two cents a bushel, but they got the bonus. In 1931 they got thirty-eight cents and the loss in that year was about eight or nine cents a bushel. This year, without any reduction in cost below the 1930 figure, we have an estimate of what is actually reaching the farmers on the average grain on their farms, of twenty-five to twenty-nine cents a bushel. In other words, the farmers have been losing from eight to twenty cents during the last two years. If we take the figures from 1923 to 1929, we find that the farmers were making a profit of about fourteen or fifteen cents a bushel and things were going fairly well in Canada at that time. But that was not an exorbitant profit; it was a reasonable profit.
The question may be asked, and asked quite fairly, whether, because of the prosperous conditions we enjoyed from 1923 to 1930, the farmers should not have been able to stand the gaff, as some people say, in the last two years. Even the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has raised the question why the farmers were in difficulties during 1930 considering the total value of their production in the preceding few years. There was issued by the Imperial, economic committee, volume

twenty, on the wheat situation, 1931, and at page 111 there is a statement taken, I believe, from tables prepared by the statisticians in Great Britain showing the relative value of wheat as compared with other commodities in Great Britain. The figures may not apply strictly to Canada, but I do not think that we have any figures worked out on this basis in this country. These figures are given over the period from 1846 to 1930. In 1846 we start off with 100, and if you follow the course of the value of all commodities in Great Britain, excluding wheat and flour, and the value of wheat in terms of other commodities, you will find that the value of wheat has been sliding down steadily ever since 1846. I should like to make a brief reference to 1909. In that year the index figure for all commodities excluding wheat and flour was 91, and for wheat 82. Taking the war and succeeding years, the figures are as follows:
t	Other
Tear-	Wheat	commodities1914	
69	1031917	
69	2181918	
60	2421919	
54	2611920	
52	317
This illustrates the fact that notwithstanding the high prices for wheat during the war the cost of other commodities in relation to wheat rose very high as compared with what they had been prior to the war.
Coming to the last few years, let us take the prosperous years we have had from 1923 to 1929:
Other
Year-	Wheat	commodities1923	
52	1621924	
56	1761925	
62	1751927	
67	1521930	
56	122
The story is simply this, that the wheat producer throughout the world has been giving constantly since 1846 more wheat for less commodities and the disparity as between wheat and goods was greater during the time wheat was selling well over $1 a bushel than in ordinary times, outside the last three years, when wheat was around sixty-five to seventy cents. The charge against the farmers in general throughout the world that they are complainers; that they are not efficient, is, in view of those facts, absolutely wrong and not an expression of intelligence. So I submit that we have before us a real problem. Whether we can solve it, whether we can do anything to solve it, is another matter.
I should like briefly to refer to the question of cattle. We have not as complete statistics

Farm Relief-Mr. Kennedy (Peace River)
with regard to the cost of producing or finishing cattle as we have with regard to wheat, but we have some. There is an experimental station at Manyberries, Alberta, where under range conditions the figures are as follows:
Per 100 Pounds Live Weight
Cost	of	calves (in fall)	
$7	25Cost	of	yearlings (in fall)	
6	98Cost	of	two-year olds (in fall) ....	6	42Cost	of	three-year olds (in	fall)..	6	15
It has been said that if there is nothing in wheat, the thing to do is to raise cattle. What are the prices of cattle? These are range figures that I have given. I think it is fair to say that it costs a little more to produce cattle under farm than under range conditions. Further, we ought to call attention to the fact that these are prices on the range, not on the market. It would cost probably SI per 100 pounds to get a lot of that stuff on to the market. So, while there has been a drop of possibly 30 per cent in the price of feed grains, it would still be necessary, in order to pay the cost of producing these animals, the cost of getting them to the market and the feed, to get about five cents a pound. I have under my hand a statement in the monthly bulletin of agricultural statistics for September, 1932. I am taking the quotations at Calgary and Edmonton of steers up to 1.050 pounds common. In Calgary they were selling from $3.50 per 100 pounds in May to $2 in August. That is the lowest figure given. That is the problem. They are returning about 40, 50 or 60 per cent of the cost of production. In Edmonton the price of steers common, up to 1,050 pounds, ranged from $3.20 per 100 pounds in May to $2.05 in August, and for steers over 1,050 pounds common, from $3.18 per 100 pounds in May to $2.06 in August. You lose on the production of wheat; you lose on the production of cattle if you feed the wheat to cattle. That is the story.
What about hogs? I do not want to take time or to weary the house, but I should like to give just a few figures taken from the report of the superintendent at the experimental station at Lacombe, Alberta, and I have checked them against figures of Ontario and further east in Canada. The cost of producing hogs in 1930 at Lacombe was $6.50 per 100 pounds for feed alone, nothing for labour, nothing for depreciation of buildings, nothing for the cost of carrying on the parent stock. That is given at page 36 of the report of the superintendent for 1930. Let us take bacon hogs. The price of hogs at Calgary was $3.37 in May and $4.08 in August. That might bring back the feed cost of production
if we allow for the fact that feed has dropped in price a little from 1930. At Edmonton the price of bacon hogs was $3.25 in May and $3.92 in August. It is the same story there.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the agricultural problem. What are we going to do about it? Prices have not gone up to any very great extent since August of this year. In fact, some have come down. Wheat has come down, and there does not seem to be any bottom to the wheat market. I have here a statement prepared by the Imperial Economic Committee. In its twentieth report on The Wheat Situation, at page 105, it shows the approximate wheat stocks in important areas from August 1, 1921 to August 1, 1932 as follows:
Year	Bushels
1921		 476,000,000
1922		 507,000,000
1923		 461,000,000
1924		 578,000,000
1925		 419.000,000
1926		 482,000,000
1927		 521,000,000
1928			590,000,000
1929		 858,000,000
1930		 809,000,000
1931		 904,000,000
In other words, at the end of August 1, 193 we had more wheat in the world than is imported annually by the leading importing countries of the world. They usually import about 800,000,000 bushels. There was a little drop down in wheat stocks during the year 1931, but while I do not want to take time to quote the figures I may say that that was more than made up this year. We have wheat stocks in the world to-day of approximately 1,000,000,000 bushels, and available for export possibly 700,000,000 bushels. So I submit that whatever the government may do-I think the government was wise in the steps it took to support the wheat pool in marketing our western wheat, and I want to give the government credit for that-in face of the vast oversupply of wheat that we have in the world today there is no possibility of raising the price, and we might as well face that fact. It is no use handing out statements to the press that we have marketed a few more million bushels of wheat over a certain period than we did over a similar period in a former year and so on, so long as we have a huge surplus hanging over the world that we cannot gel rid of. Nor can you raise prices of cattle or hogs so long as you have a huge surplus hanging over the market. 'When we were discussing the trade treaties I said then that you cannot raise prices while you have huge surpluses pressing on the buying market all the
1618	COMMONS
Farm Relief-Mr. Kennedy (Peace River)
time. You cannot do it. If we are to save our present social system or save it long enough till we can change it for something better there must be a reasonable increase in prices, and the question of raising prices is not altogether a question of raising the value. Prices is a purely relative term. If we cannot raise prices in the world's markets we can decrease the cost of production, and decrease the value of money in relation to the price of wheat, thereby making our produce worth more in relation to money. That is the only thing we can do.
It has been argued that the value of gold is always the same. Yes, it is, in relation to gold, but not in relation to anything else. Just as motion is a purely relative thing, so is value, and the only thing I can see to do in this regard without advocating inflation and increasing the volume of credit or money, or whatever you like to call it, is to lower the value of money in relation to our commodities. It is the flow of money or credit or whatever you like to call it in accordance with the law of supply and demand that determines the value of money in relation to all your commodities. That same law applies to money just the same as it does to wheat or anything else. But the world has been restricting credit in spite of the gold basis. Take what has happened in the United States, which country we have been trying to follow to some extent here in Canada. I have a report of an address here which was made by Donald M. Marvin, Ph.D., economist of the Royal Bank of Canada, in which he sets forth what happened in the United States about 1929. He says:
In the months which followed the clash in security prices the volume of world trade declined steadily, and prices fell. As gold accumulated in the creditor countries, France and the United States, these countries did not increase their volume of outstanding credit; they permitted it to continue to contract. Even in recent months the weekly returns of the member banks in the United States show a decline in loans and investments of $1,000,000,000 since the first of November; $2,000,000,000 since the last of September, and $3,000,000,000 since April, 1931. The decline in the first four months from October has been at the rate of $6,000,000,000 per year, or more than 25 per cent per annum. No nation can stand such a contraction of credit.
While there may have been contraction or a drop in prices due to the fact that other countries were doing similar things, the contraction in Canada and the United States was also a factor, and a big factor, in the crash of commodity prices.
One reason why we want to see the dollar go down to the level of the pound is that

it will mean that our commodities that we must sell on the basis of world prices will be worth more in relation to debts and in relation to the cost of production. We do not advance that as a cure-all. If we did we might well be laughed at. There will still be a lot of problems to be solved even after that is done. I do not think the government is taking the wise course in relation to the primary producers of this country in trying to keep the dollar up as high as possible. Somebody has to sacrifice, and I think the farmer has sacrificed in the last few years. I have advised the farmers throughout my constituency, notwithstanding the fact that I could not see any prospect in the near future of an improvement in conditions to any great extent, at least until this money question was tackled, in spite of the fact that the treaties are of some value and will do some real good, to continue on as carefully as possible because it is their duty to Canada to carry on. If the primary producers of this country were to throw up their hands, the bonds of the country and the savings of the people would not amount to much.
Some people take another position. The Prime Minister has taken it on one or two occasions, if I understood the reports of his speeches, namely, that because we ask for some inflation we are asking the government to do what they did in Germany and Russia during and after the war. Now if praying for rain means that you are praying for a flood, that would be all right; but it is not so. Our whole life is an attempt to regulate our conduct on the principle of moderation, a choice between two extremes. If it is right to argue that every man who takes a drink is a drunkard, it would be all right to argue that deflating the dollar to the level of the British pound would be asking the country to do what happened in Germany during the war. What happened in Germany? In December, 1920, they had 81 millard paper marks issued, and at that time 17 paper marks were worth one gold mark. In August, 1923, there were 116,000 millard paper marks issued, and it took 1,000,000 of them to equal one gold mark. That, Mr. Speaker, is inflation with a vengeance.
Then, turning to Austria we find that in June, 1920, there were 17 millard paper krone in circulation; at that time 27 paper krone were worth one gold krone. On August, 1923 there were 5,557 millard paper krone in emulation, and 14,369 were required to equal one gold krone.
Then follow the currency conditions in Russia. We find in January, 1919 there were

Farm Relief-Mr. Pouliot
61 millard paper roubles in circulation, and at that time 103 paper roubles equalled one gold rouble. In June, 1923 there were 8,050,000 millard paper roubles in circulation, and at that time 97.690,000 paper roubles equalled one gold rouble. These figures show the extent of inflation which obtained in Germany, Austria and Russia. What happened in those countries was that the savings of people holding wealth in titles to money were wiped out. Germany practically wiped out her internal debt. The same happened in Russia.
We do not want that to happen in Canada. The sensible basis upon which to regulate the volume of money-and it cannot be done without a central bank charged with responsibility-is in relation to price levels. Thereby one can issue a fair volume of money to the people who have saved up wealth, and a reasonably fair issue to the producers of commodities. That is the point at which we must aim. At present we are sacrificing the people who produce manufactured goods, and we are also sacrificing the farmers for the sake of those people who have wealth and titles to money. We are not asking the government to go to the other extreme, but merely asking for reasonable parity or equilibrium. There are other places also where parity might be established.
So, Mr. Speaker, that is one step which in my view' may be taken. Some people ask: How can it be done? The Macmillan committee advanced various methods of doing it, but I believe it could be done very simply if the Prime Minister would announce tomorrow in this house that Canada, for the future, would try to stabilize her dollar on a level w'ith the British pound, in relation to the United States dollar. I believe that would do it. Further, I believe anything done along that line, while it may take away from people who have wealth and titles to money, will make for better conditions generally among the whole population of Canada.
The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) who spoke immediately before me referred to the doubts entertained by Sir Montagu Norman and several other gentlemen. Certainly there is one thing about which there can be no doubt, namely that we cannot continue to go on as we are doing today. We must go somewhere. What have been the experiences in countries which have devalued their money? Has Great Britain lost? Undoubtedly some people in Britain had to lose, but Great Britain has been able to balance her budget. - Further, if the figures given to the house by the hon. member for
Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) can be relied upon, and I believe they can, Great Britain has been able to show an increase in employment. She is maintaining her export business on the markets of the world better than any country that has chosen to remain on the gold basis. The United States, and several other countries on the gold basis, are losing heavily. Australia is operating on a devaluated currency. An editorial taken from an Ottawa Journal of recent date is as follows:
A loan floated by the government of New South Wales in October, guaranteed by the Commonwealth government, was over subscribed within half an hour. The loan was for thirteen million pounds, to bear three and one-half per cent interest, and was issued at ninety-seven. . . .
Professor Copland. of the Melbourne university School of Commerce, who is one of the Australian government's expert advisers, says that Australia has been saved by a threefold policy:
1.	Depreciation of currency in terms of gold. The exchange rate is now 25 per cent off sterling and 60 per cent off gold.
2.	Expansion of credit.
3.	Cutting of costs.
We have tried some of these things in Canada but not depreciated currency and expanding credit. We have been contracting credit although, I believe there has been some slight expansion lately. It is because I believe that will help in the present situation that I am advocating it to the house. I want to give the government full credit for what it has done in the marketing of wheat, although I wish it had been able to continue the bonus, because the need is desperate. If however the government cannot see its way clear to do that I think it is only fair that, in view of the tremendously difficult circumstances under which the farmers of western Canada are operating and for that matter all farmers, there should be a devaluation of the dollar, and, for a time at least, a sacrifice on the part of those people who in the last few years have received wealth by an increase in the purchasing power of their money without effort on their part. I believe they should be asked to make a sacrifice in order that primary producers may be helped, by a relative lowering of costs of production and debts.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I regret I cannot
understand the attitude of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) who has spoken before me. It would seem that he is dissatisfied with the government, and for that reason I cannot understand why he has voted with them.

Farm Relief-Mr. Pouliot
I regret very much the absence from the house of the Prime Minister at this time. The present discussion concerns the situation now obtaining in Canada and I believe the Prime Minister should be in his seat to hear the complaints from the different constituencies.


Robert James Manion: Where is the leader of the opposition?


Jean-François Pouliot: The leader of the opposition is not in charge of the government.


Robert James Manion: I see.


Jean-François Pouliot: I believe the Prime Minister should follow the good example of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) and should be in his seat at the moment.


Robert James Manion: So should the leader of
the opposition.


Jean-François Pouliot: To show my appreciation
of the Minister of Railways and Canals I shall quote him in a few moments. Because of the distress suffered by farmers in the province of Quebec may I say that I regret very much to see none of the Quebec ministers in their seats. The only members we see on the government benches are the would-be ministers.


Charles A. Stewart: Name them.


Jean-François Pouliot: No; in due course the
Prime Minister will name them. A few days ago my distinguished friend from Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) brought a matter of great importance to the attention of the house. At that time he spoke concerning the guarantee given by the government to the wheat pool. In the course of his explanation the Prime Minister uttered the following words which appear at page 1094 of Hansard:
If I might say so, I do not think any good purpose would be served by going into the details of the operations which we have entrusted to the organizations I have mentioned under the management of Mr. McFarland.
At that time I took the opportunity to make a practical suggestion to the Prime Minister. It appears as follows at page 1096 of Hansard:
As the right hon. gentleman has said that it would serve no good purpose to give any more details about the situation and as the explanations that he has already given are most interesting, would he have any objection to having the galleries cleared in order that he may give full information to the house? I have asked the Prime Minister for an answer.

I asked for an answer because the Prime Minister made no reply to my suggestion. Then Your Honour said "No." I note however that there was no answer from the Prime Minister. My point of view was this: We are here to look after the business of the country. At times it may have been that the government was a few millions up. At the moment the Prime Minister made his statement however I learned from a reliable source that the government was down about $30,000,000 or $40,000,000. Whether or not my information was correct I cannot say, but I was very suspicious when the Prime Minister refused to tell the house what had really happened. If he could not give that information to the press, he could very easily have the galleries cleared and given full information to the house so that we might have known the deficit in connection with that particular operation.
He has done that for the west; what has he done for the east? In that connection I asked him another question; I like to see him in the house so that I may ask him questions. As it is a one-man government, of course I can ask questions of only that one man. The other day I asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) to convey a message to the Prime Minister. I had to convey my message through Hansard, because the Prime Minister was not in his seat.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Probably the Solicitor General could not see the Prime Minister.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, I believe he could see him; I shall give him the benefit of the doubt. According to Hansard of November 15, page 1155, I spoke as follows:
Whether it is good, or whether it is bad I am not yet ready to express a view,-
I was speaking about the guarantee to the wheat pool.
-but may I ask the government seriously to consider if it is not advisable to give the same warranty to the farmers who raise hogs, to those engaged in the dairying industry, in potato-growing, to those who have greenhouses, to those-
Mr. Chairman said: Order, and I continued:
If the move that has been made by the government with regard to guaranteeing wheat is a good move, it is just as good for the hog industry. If it is necessary for the wheat industry it is just as necessary for the hog industry and for agriculture as a whole. For this reason I ask the Prime Minister whether he is not ready to consider at once guaranteeing the hog industry in order to provide some actual relief to the farmer in Canada the same as is done for the wheat business.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall article 6 carry?

Farm Relief-Mr. Pouliot
Mr. Pouliot: I should like to have an answer to ray question. I spoke in plain English?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: There is no rule to compel anyone to answer. Shall the article carry?
Some hon. Members: Carried.
No answer! Just as well to have no Prime Minister if you have one who does not answer. He is dumb! I asked him what was the guarantee that he was giving to the pool. No answer! I asked it on behalf of hon. members of this house who wanted to know something about it. No answer. Then I asked him if he is ready to do for the farmers of the east what he has done for the farmers of the west. No answer, he is mute.
In the province of Quebec, at least, each farmer is a lumberjack. The farmers divide their life 'between the two industries, farming and lumbering. I am not going to speak at great length about it but may I say that there is no actual relief to the lumber industry, if we take the words of the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) who said that the results of the trade agreements in respect to lumber would mean something in three to five years. In the meantime in rural centres the burden of private charity is on the shoulders of the farmers, and those who have to suffer a cut of ten per cent in their salary.
The other day the right hon. Prime Minister was in Toronto, and may I quote a very short extract from the Mail and Empire of November 17, 1932. It is entitled:
Hordes of Yelling Children Surround Premier at Fair, Forcing a Strategic Retreat
Children to the right of him, children to the left of him, children in front of him, screamed, yelled, pushed, shoved, kicked him in the shins! hurtled in his middle, and had the time of their lives upsetting every vestige of dignity in the tour.
Only one premier, but-
That is the subtitle; isn't this delightful?
It was a lot of fun, at first, judging by the large amused smile on the Prime Minister's face, but at the end of two hours the somewhat wan and harassed look had almost removed the smile. The difficulty was there was onlv one premier, but there were no less than 25,000 youngsters to step upon his toes.
And it explains that if he made a fair speech in the evening-he was speaking at the fair, it was necessarily a fair speech, but some of the statements were painful. We see in large characters as a headline in the Mail and Empire of November 17, what declaration, what statement?
Home Market Ensured Farmers, Bennett Asserts
That is all. That is a very commonplace saying. As you know very well, Mr. Speaker,
in this country production exceeds consumption and farm products are supposed to be on an export basis. If the Prime Minister says that the farmers have only the home market, it means that the market has shrunk and they cannot expect anything at all as a matter of exporlt.
Nowr I had something on the tariff, but I will only say a word about that. I am most surprised that Right Hon. Senator Meighen has introduced the legislation about the agreements in the upper house. I will tell you why. I say that on account of the farmers, who complain that prices of foreign commodities are so low. If we take Hansard of April 8, 1926, we see this:
Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw): You contend that if the tariff is taken off the prices immediately rise?
Mr. Meighen: We contend it and we know it, because we see the facts.
Now, in order to fulfil my promise to my genial friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion); on that same occasion, the same page, he said:
If you take off the tariff you raise the prices of goods.
Which can be reversed this way, that if you increase the tariff you decrease the prices of goods. My hon. friend knows very well that I would not like to misquote him. Now the government gives the figures of quantifies instead of values of sales and exports. The farmers have to produce three times as much for the same amount of money. That is what is being done now.
During the campaign the right hon. Prime Minister said: I will give you work, not charity. WThat has been done? According to the report of the Dominion director of unemployment relief of March 16, 1931, there were 228,351 individuals given employment, but the number of man days given were only 3.975,355. In other words, by virtue of this relief act each of the unemployed mentioned in the report worked for only thirteen days.
Very often in this house I have stressed the importance of a classification of the unemployed. On October 31 of this year I asked a question, which will be found at page 693 of Hansard:
Mr. Pouliot:
1.	Does the total number given relief 741,241 (page iv of the last report of the Dominion Director of Unemployment Relief) include men and women?
2.	If so, what is the proportion of men and women?
3.	Does it include boys under twenty-one years of age?
4.	If so, how many?
Farm Reliej-Mr. Pouliot

5.	Does it include: (a) railway employees; (b) farm help; (c) store clerks; (d) commercial travellers; (e) agents; (f) miners; (g) sailors; (h) carpenters; (i) bricklayers; (j) masons; (k) plumbers; (1) office clerks; (m) day labourers, and (n) people who were working for manufacturers?
6.	If so, how many of each class?
Mr. Gordon:
1.	Yes.
2,	3, 4, 5 and 6. The statistics regarding the number of persons receiving direct relief under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, were submitted by the provinces under the following headings:
(a)	Number of heads of families given direct relief.
(b)	Number of dependents on heads of families.
(c)	Individual relief cases covering one person only.
Therefore, the Department of Labour has no information as to the division of men, women, etc., or the occupation followed by persons receiving relief.
There are social organizations which look after the unemployed, such as the St. Vincent de Paul Society, the Salvation Army and the Red Cross. These organizations do a wonderful work. They try to locate those poor people who are ashamed of their condition, whom we might call the hiding poor. As my humble contribution to this debate I would suggest that the government see to it ;hat the unemployed are classified so that fre might be able to do something for them more quickly. We have heard a good deal about direct relief. According to the report of the Dominion director of unemployment relief dated March 1, 1932, there were 2,223,671 meals given, while the total number of people on direct relief was 741,241. So, according to the official report, the relief given each man, woman and child mentioned therein amounted to only three meals, or food for one day. I would like to remind that gentleman that one day is only a very small fraction of the year. The case is even worse in regard to lodging. There were 426,461 nights' lodgings given those 741,000 unemployed, which means that about one-half the unemployed were lodged for one night. Can we say that direct relief means anything?
It seems to me that the government underestimates the number of unemployed and overestimates the aid it is giving. Today while I was having luncheon in the restaurant I asked the waitress how many members there were in her family. She told me there were nine boys and seven girls. One boy is married and lives away from home, and is unable to give any assistance. Of the seven girls one is working in another city and two are employed as maids. So there are four girls and eight boys left at home, with their

mother and a father who has paralysis. Of the fourteen children at home only two girls are able to contribute to the support of the family. There are many government employees receiving small salaries, who suffered a cut of 10 per cent and who are supporting their married children who are unable to get work. The situation is worse than it ever has been. You know, Mr. Speaker, that many heads of families have come to the assistance of the unemplojred by giving them lodging, food, shelter and clothing. There are many young men just out of college who are unemployed; what are they to do? They are willing to work but there is no work, and perhaps they will not always have that desire. Today I received the following letter from an unemployed man in Quebec:
(Translation)
Quebec, Nov. 23, 1932.
Mr. Jean-F. Pouliot,
Member for Teiniscouata.
Dear sir,-
Would it interest you to know what it costs the Dominion government, provincial government and the city of Quebec to feed, light and heat a family of six persons, for a period of twenty-eight days, under the government of R. B. Bennett. I shall put an end to unemployment or perish in the task. For Heaven's sake will you do me the favour, if you think it expedient, of drawing the attention of the house and the pressmen to this letter. Perhaps this would help to close-
Then, there are a few words which are illegible.
-who states that nobody is in want in Canada. Were I conveniently dressed to appear before [DOT]a justice of the peace, I would be pleased to make a sworn statement as to the list of articles which I am enclosing in this letter. Not wishing to trouble you further, I remain,
Your most obliged.
October 29 direct relief
Cents
61	lbs. of pork at 10	cents	
6534	lbs. of pigs' feet	
251	bag of potatoes	
653	lbs. of butter	
721	lb. of fat	
124	doz. eggs	
203	lbs. of beans.,	
152	lbs. of brown sugar	
102	lbs. of onions	
10i	lb. of pepper	
15* 2 ..	bars of soap	
1011	loaves of bread, 2	lbs. each	
881 cord of wood, 2 ft. long	$6 00
About the same things are supplied each week.
Total $20.56.
Fuel $6.
Lighting 21 cents.
Food $14.35.
For a family of six persons for a period of four weeks.

Farm Relief-Mr. Pouliot
That is, under the direct relief system, an amount of $14.35 is given to feed six persons for a period of 4 weeks. He further adds:
I wish to point out that one must not find fault, otherwise one is looked upon as a communist.
This brings me to what the Prime Minister said in Toronto on November 10:
Well, if there are any Liberals within sound of my voice you will get away from that party because it is no longer a party but a jumble led by a cooperative commonwealth. Why? Because they seek to capitalize on all the unrest that exists.
I should like to know on what authority the Prime Minister based his statement that he would end unemployment; that information would be very interesting. For the first time in my life I have seen a copy of LTnter-nationale, not published by the Liberal party but contained in a paper called Spartakus, the official organ of the unemployed. National unrest is caused by national distress. The government has done nothing or very little to assist the unemployed; it is private chanty alone which has prevented the spread of communism throughout the country and it should be thanked for the fact that "LTnterna-tionale" is not our national anthem.
Last year I made a suggestion to the Minister of National Defence, which he accepted. I suggested that the military clothing in the possession of the department should be used to clothe the unemployed. The minister followed out my suggestion by placing some unemployed in the citadel at Quebec, and that was a very good move. There is an armoury in my town in which considerable clothing is being ruined by moths, and I submit that this clothing should be given to the unemployed. If new uniforms are necessary for the militia, the department should order them to provide work for the tailors.


Mr. COTNAM:: Will they wear kilts down there?


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend is more
familiar with Scotch matters than I am.
The back to the land policy is sound theoretically but it should be carried on with great discretion. Consideration should be given to the natural disposition and experience of those sent back to the land. A farmer cannot be improvised, he must have a disposition for settlement upon the land. It is almost impossible to change the manner of living of the white-collared unemployed-he cannot be turned into a farmer in a day.
The lands should be classified before people are placed thereon in order that the right
selection can be made of good farm lands and forestry reserves. No lot should be granted unless it is upon a road. I have knowledge of some unemployed who tried to get to the lots issued to them but they found they could not do so because there were no roads.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The selection and location of the families is determined by the provinces.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will admit that, but as
the provinces are to send delegates shortly to a dominion-provincial conference, I suggest that this matter should be brought to the attention of those directly concerned.
This morning I read an interesting report in the paper, a resume of an order for returi tabled yesterday showing that certain extravagant purchases had been made in the province of Quebec in connection with the back to the land scheme. It is impossible to keep any settlers upon the land if they are forced to live unhappy lives. They must have [DOT] a certain amount of comfort but this is no excuse for the extravagance which has occurred. Extravagant purchases have been made, certain accounts are supposed to have been falsified and apparently certain purchases were made without authorization. The Montreal Gazette of November 23 contained an interesting report of a rather lively meeting which took place between the council of the city of Montreal and the premier of the province of Quebec in connection with direct relief. I should like to make a certain statement and before I do so I will say that I take full responsibility for what I say. I make this statement as a Canadian and as a French Canadian who does not like to see these people suffering as they are. In the neighbouring constituency to Temiscouata certain farmers were forced to eat herbs last summer in order to exist. These people are just as poor as anyone possibly could be. They were isolated in the middle of the woods and had no opportunity to communicate with anyone. Another matter which should be investigated is the issuing of letters patent or location tickets to so-called farmers who do not settle upon the lots issued to them. The whole matter of colonization should be thoroughly investigated. I know of one instance in the giving of direct relief where lumber was purchased in the Abitibi district to be used in Charlevoix-Saguenay constituency. This purchase was made because one of the leaders of the movement had a brother who had a mill in Abitibi. It is a shame that money should be wasted in this way. I would suggest that the Trappist friars,
Farm Relief-Mr. Donnelly

who have made a specialty of agriculture, should be called upon to organize the settlement of people upon the land in the province of Quebec. This is another suggestion which I offer to the Minister of Labour.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That matter would be
entirely in the hands of the premier of the province of Quebec.
Mr. THOMAS F. DONNELLY (Willow Bunch):	Mr. Speaker, we are, I hope drawing near to the end of this portion of the session. Hon. members who come from industrial centres will be going back home to their constituencies and the first question the labourer will be asking them will be:	What
have you done for the unemployed? They will have to admit that during the present session nothing has been done which will in any way help the unemployed. Those of us who come from the agricultural centres also will be going back home, and the first question our farmers will be asking will be: What have you done for the relief of the distressed farmer? We shall be obliged to admit that nothing whatever has been done during the present session to relieve unemployment and our distressed farmers.
With a government that went into power promising to end unemployment, promising the farmers a high price for their wheat, a high price for their butter and high prices for all their other farm commodities, unemployment, farm relief and the administration of those two matters should surely be their first consideration. Whatever we may say or think, throughout the length and breadth of the country these two problems, the relief of farmers and the giving of work to the unemployed, are uppermost in the mind of almost every Canadian.
Some hon. members will say:	This unemployment and this distress on the farm are due to the world, depression. We admit that. It was true in 1929; it is true today. The depression which has spread over different parts of the world has caused in other countries conditions similar to those obtaining here, but we believe the policy of the present government has aggravated the situation in Canada. If we study this depression, we find that it has followed the course of many others. Depressions have existed in Canada and in the world before, and they have all gone in the same direction. We find that the first people to feel the effect of hard times are the primary producers: the farmers on the land, the fishermen, the lumbermen and the miners, especially of the coarser metals. These people begin to get a smaller price for their 
product. The result is that their buying power is lessened, they are able to buy very little from the retail merchant. The retatil merchant in turn is able to buy very little from the wholesaler, and as a consequence the wholesaler is able to buy very little from the manufacturer. In about six months or a year the manufacturer begins to feel the lack of buying power on the part of the primary producer, whether he be farmer, fisher, lumberman or miner. Conversely, when we begin to come out of the depression, the first people to feel the effect of good times are^ the primary producers. They begin to get higher prices for their goods. The farmer receives a better price for his produce; the fisherman also, the miner a better price for his coarser metals and the lumberman, whether in pulp-wood or ordinary lumber, begins to get a better price. These better prices enable them to buy more from the retail merchant. As a result the retail merchant buys more from the wholesaler, and the wholesaler more from the manufacturer. This has been the course of every depression through which the world has passed, and doubtless the present one will follow the same course.
We find, however, today that instead of times getting better, day by day and week by week prices are getting smaller and smaller to the primary producr. We are getting further and further, deeper and deeper into the present depression, and in fact it looks as though there were no daylight ahead. We have never yet got over a depression by starting at the top and working down, by the manufacturer or the financier or the stockbroker getting better prices for stocks or shares or bonds. The movement always starts with the primary producer and we find that he is getting into a worse position day by day and week by week.
What is the cause of the present unemployment and farm distress? All economists throughout the world say today that the main cause of unemployment and farm distress is tariffs; that greed on the part of an individual, of a corporation, of a country and, coupled with that, anything which produces or constitutes special privileges handed out to individuals are the causes of our present depression. We find today, for example, that in western Canada we have conditions where our farmers are unable to grow wheat because it is too cheap. With wheat at from twenty-five to thirty cents a bushel our farmers cannot grow it because it is too cheap. Yet in Germany we find that the farmers cannot eat white bread because it is too dear. On the other hand, we find that the farmers in

Farm Relief-Mr. Donnelly
western Canada cannot buy iron or steel for the repair of binders or mowers or rakes or whatever it may be, because those commodities are too dear, whereas Germany cannot produce iron and steel because they are too cheap. The German common people and the common people of the west are willing to exchange our wheat for their iron and steel, but they are prevented from doing so. By whom? By the big interests, by politicians and by the policies of the different governments in placing restrictions in the way of high tariffs on our wheat going into Germany and their iron and steel coming into Canada. The result is that we are starving for the need of iron and steel for our repairs and Germany is starving for the lack of wheat. These are well known facts. I might say the same thing with regard to France, Italy, and almost every other country in Europe. Almost everyone today, even some hon. gentlemen opposite- the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) in South Huron, and the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton), said they would like to see tariffs done away with- realize the proper course to pursue is to do away with tariffs. We would like to do away with tariffs, but everyone is afraid to make a beginning. They say: We cannot do that because all the world has gone crazy and we must be crazy too. Someone must make a beginning in the direction of lowering tariffs. If we were to start doing so, then we would be able to deal with other countries and make conditions better for our own farmers and labourers.
We in Canada live under a system of what we call individualism or capitalism. This has grown out of the old Norman system when each individual was supposed to be paid according to his work. He could work as long and as hard as he liked and put as much mental ability into his employment as he wished, and he was rewarded according to his labour. The idea was that every man should have freedom of action. Developing out of that we have the system of Cobden, Bright and Gladstone of freedom of action by a country, where we should have freedom of trade between countries, just as individuals have freedom of action. That is the history of the past. But we find at the present time that restrictions have been placed upon freedom of trade among nations and we find also that under our system there has not been a just reward for labour, I do not care whether it be that of the mine or sea or farm or office. Capitalism has been receiving too much; the manufacturer has been getting too great a reward for his capital. Unless some-53719-103
thing is done to give a more equitable reward to labour, there is no doubt that this capitalistic system of ours will break. Then the only thing left for us is communism, and no one wants communism in this country. As a matter of fact, we have it already in a measure in Canada. We are under communism when the state tells us what we are to work at, to get a living, clothing and warm beds. If you go to gaol or the penitentiary the country will give you a meal and a warm bed, but no one wants that condition. Our present system must be reformed, and if it is not reformed then as sure as day follows night our system as we know it today is going to break. I repeat, that this system does not work out perfectly either for the individual or for the country. In other countries we have seen people carried away by greed and selfishness.
I have sympathy with the Prime Minister because I do not think the manufacturers used him fairly, and I say that without fear of contradiction. When he came into power he did away with the tariff advisory board, and then the manufacturers came to him and told him that they wanted so much tariff on their goods.
I believe they asked for more then they needed. I believe that firmly, but the Prime Minister took them at their word and gave them what they asked. He gave them too much. These manufacturers asked for too much and they got too much. It is only human nature to ask for a lot and expect less. That was the way with the manufacturers, except that they asked for a lot and got a lot. It was this spirit of greed operating again. They were carried away by this trait in our human nature. But I say, Mr. Speaker, that granting them such high protection has helped to make conditions worse than they otherwise would have been. Personally I do not think that any manufacturing concern in Canada or anywhere else should receive more than 15 or 20 per cent protection at the most. A certain amount of protection perhaps should be given to some manufacturers, but when a manufacturer asks for 90 or 100 per cent protection he should not be given it. It is out of reason altogether. Yet these manufacturers asked for it and got it. The result is what? It means that our farmers have lost their buying power; they cannot buy as much as they could before. It means that the ordinary labouring man is thrown out of employment, and little by little the effects spread and intensify the present depression.
What do we find in regard to unemployment? Last year I had occasion where I was situated to see many of these men who were

Farm Relief-Mr. Donnelly

out of work and wandering up and down the country. I must disagree with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) when he says that these men are mostly foreigners. I am sorry to say that most of them are Canadian-born, young men mostly between the ages of 16 and 24, who have left the farm and gone out into the world to try to make a living, and now find themselves out of work. It was these young men, Canadian born, who were in the majority of those that I found travelling up and down on our trains. When they left home and started out in the world to make a living they wandered about for a year or two, and I am sorry to say that the majority of them go from bad to worse, so that after a time it is hard to get them back into industrial life. Those are the conditions as I saw them in western Canada, at all events.
The only policy that the Minister of Labour seems to have to oure this condition is to put these people back on the land. I want to say this with regard to the back to the land movement: I have been farmiiNg in western Canada for the last 24 or 25 years and you can take any farmer in western Canada today, and let him be ever so good a farmer, put him on the best land in western Canada, and give him his home and the farm equipment he needs, and I will guarantee that he cannot make a living and pay his taxes. W hen men who have been at farming all their life are not able to make a living on the best farms in western Oanada today, why send these people out of our cities back to the land ? The best farmer in western Canada today, if you give him his land and his home, his horses and equipment, is not able to make a living and pay taxes on the land at present prices of fann products. I am still farming in western Canada and know whereof I speak. And when I see papers like the Winnipeg Tribune writing article after article saying that all is well in the west and that we are on the road to prosperity, I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a shame. They are just armchair farmers sitting around the fire, not out doing the actual work on the farm, getting up at four or five in the morning. If they had to do that, they would realize what they were up against and what reward they got for their labour. They would know that conditions are as I have stated. They simply do not know whereof they speak. I repeat, the farmer in western Canada today, I do not care where he is, is not able to make a living and pay his taxes under present conditions.
I hope that some good will come out of the provincial conference which the Prime Minister has called, and that something will

be done whereby work will be provided for some of our people. It is a step in the right direction, and I want to congratulate the government for having taken it. I trust that something will be evolved that will enable our unemployed to get work.
Just to give the house some idea of farming conditions in western Canada, last summer a man on one of my farms was going into town and he thought he would take in a beef hide to sell. He put the hide into the car and drove into town. He went up to the merchant and asked him: "How much will you give me for this?" The merchant replied, "It is of no value to us." "Will you give me two bits for it?" the man asked. "No," said the merchant, "it is of no value to us." "Well," said the man, "will you take it if I give you two bits?" "Well no," the merchant replied, "as far as that is concerned, if you want to get rid of it I will take it from you, but it is of no value." So the man gave him the hide for nothing, a hide from a 700 or 800 pound steer. Then the man turned round and went across the street to the hardware merchant's, and bought for SI .50 a pound of lace leather made out of the very same raw material that he had given away for nothing.


Mr. MULLINS:: That statement is absolutely wrong and misleading to the farmers of western Canada. You cannot make lace leather out of that, kind of hide.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I want to tell the hon. member that I have seen lace leather made out of hides of that kind. If the hon. member is a tanner he may know. I am not a tanner, but I have seen lace leather made out of that kind of a hide.


Mr. McKENZIE:: (Assiniboia): So have I.


James J. Donnelly: Yes. I am not speaking from hearsay. I know whereof I speak. He paid 81.50 for one pound of lace leather, and the hide he gave away for nothing. WThat is true of that hide is true of other things. Only the other day a carload of feeders was sent down from western Canada to Toronto and sold to the farmers on the farms in eastern Canada. It was laid down outside of Toronto for two cents a pound. How much will the farmer in western Canada get for those cattle? About half a cent a pound. He cannot get more. The freight all the way from western Canada to Toronto and then out to the farms will eat up the other cent and a half, leaving the farmer in western Canada only half a cent a pound. That will give the house some idea of the prices the farmer is getting for his products. Freight

Farm Relief-Mr. Donnelly
eats up most of his returns. Some baby beef was sent into Winnipeg, and was sold for two cents a pound. One cent a pound was paid for freight and commission, with the result that the farmer received only one cent per pound for his product. That was his net return. On top of that he had to pay fifteen cents exchange on the cheque. Hon. members will readily see that farmers are receiving ridiculously low prices for their products. The result is that today it is impossible for the farmers in western Canada to exist and to pay taxes on their lands. The condition I am describing is general throughout the western provinces. At this point however I should like to refer to conditions in my own district.
I come from a part of western Canada which has been so unfortunate as to have had no crop for the last four years. This year we are in the same position; we have no crop. Conditions may be described as terrible. I have heard of famines in India, China, and other parts of the world, but the condition existing in my district is as bad as any famine which ever took place. I have lived in and practised medicine in Canada for many years. I have always said that I never saw a hungry farmer in western Canada; I never saw want or poverty before. But I must admit that in the last two years I have seen more want, more poverty and more hardships than I have known to exist in the world before. These are the conditions in my section of the country.
What has the government done to relieve these settlers? Many charitable organizations have sent out relief in the form of clothes, groceries, and one thing and another. The farmers in the stricken areas are thankful for the relief they have received. Provincial legislatures also have handed out a certain amount of relief, and I want the house to understand we are thankful for the relief we are given. On the other hand, what are we actually getting by way of relief? How much do we receive? I have in my hand a letter from a clergyman in my district which sets out what the farmers in western Canada are receiving to help them in their distress. According to his information an adult is receiving $7 a month, a boy $5 a month, a girl $4 a month, and a child under seven years of age $2.50. With this amount of money they must buy their clothing and their groceries- $7 a month for an adult. Anyone who stops to think must know that a man cannot buy the necessities of life with this amount of money, and with that in mind hon. members realize the distress that exists.
We feel that the cost of distributing relief is altogether too high. In every municipality there is a relief officer. He runs up and down from one town to another; I do not know what he does, or why he travels from place to place. The fact is, however, that he runs backwards and forwards and receives good pay for it. There is a whole army in Regina, and I shah endeavour later to tell what they do. On the reverse side of the relief orders handed out there is an indication as to what a man may buy.-a certain quantity of beans, tea, coffee, sugar, or other necessities of life-and the prices he must pay are set opposite. I will guarantee that when those orders are presented to the merchants not one in half a dozen is made out according to the list on the back,-no, not one in a thousand. I will guarantee there is not a merchant in western Canada today who lives up to the regulations appearing on the back of those orders. He fills in the order just as he likes, indicating so man,v pounds of beans, so much tea, and so on. According to these receipts, carloads of beans have been sold. The merchant fills in the order, then turns around, _ asks the farmer what he wants and gives it to him. For example, tobacco is not included in the list and we all know that every farmer who smokes will get tobacco. The result is that the farmer gets his tobacco, although it may not appear on the order.
In Regina an army of two or three hundred is working in connection with relief measures. What is their work? Their work is to go over these lists and see that they are made out properly. They see that the calculations appearing on the orders are correct, and that the right amount of sugar or flour has been handed out. They are employed in that way, although we know as a matter of fact that many of the entries on the backs of the orders aTe fictitious. Yet we find them figuring at it, and that is the work for which we are paying them. In my view we would do much better to write out a cheque and send it to the farmer, telling him at the same time that he will receive no more until the first of the next month. Under the present circumstances a farmer may want to buy a postage stamp, and has to have money therefore. Under those circumstances he would go to a merchant, hand him his relief order and say, "I want a dollar with which to buy postage stamps," or "I want to go to the drug store to buy a bottle of castor oil." Invariably the merchant hands out the dollar and charges it up to so many beans. That is the way it is done, all
Farm Relief-Mr. Donnelly

the way through. Despite the inaccuracy of it all, we are paying all these relief officers and assistants. For what? For nothing, that is all.
In connection with this problem of relief I have only one more point to make. I have often wondered why a bachelor, we will say, out on a farm on the prairies, who wants a crust of bread, a cup of coffee or a pound of butter, must, before he receives any of them, sign a note saying that he will pay. We talk about relief, but we are not receiving relief in western Canada. We are only being financed. I wonder if the Prime Minister considered he was granting relief when he loaned money to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, or if he considered that he was merely financing. That is all he is doing with us; he is just financing us. For every dollar we receive in western Canada we have to sign on the dotted line, saying that we will pay. Why should we be treated differently from other parts of the country? What is the practice in the cities? When a man in the city of Ottawa states that he is hungry and wants a meal, do you make him sign a note before you send him to a soup kitchen? Why should you make the farmer in the west sign a note? I am not talking about seed grain;
I am not talking about relief handed out by way of feed for horses, or that sort of thing;
I am referring to ordinary grocery bills and the necessities of life. In order to get ordinary pork and beans with which to sustain life the western farmer has to sign a note, a promise to pay.
I do not know whether the same practice i3 followed in Ontario or in Manitoba, but I know it is done in Saskatchewan, and is being done to day. When I asked the Prime Minister why this practice was followed he said:	''II hy, I was flooded with telegrams
from people in western Canada begging that they be allowed to sign notes." But when I asked him for a copy of those telegrams I could not get them, and so far they have not been forthcoming. I have gone all through the west and questioned farmer after farmer, man after man, to find just who had sent those telegrams. I could not find any of them;
I do not know who sent them. I heard one farmer say if he ever caught hold of the man who admitted sending one of those telegrams it ovould be a sorry day for him, that he would make it most uncomfortable for him. They believe they are being descriminated against. They believe their hard times are being made worse.
Another thing we in the dried out areas had to contend with was the relief measures handed

out by this government by way of wheat bonus. That was one of those half-baked pieces of legislation put through last year by the government. At first it was going to be so much a bushel, five cents, on export wheat, but that was modified time after time until we got five cents per bushel of wheat sold by the farmer. What relief would that be to the farmers in a dried out district in which no crop was produced? We got none of it whatever. The only thing it did for us was to make us pay five cents a bushel more for our seed wheat. We had to pay more for our flour on that account. There were some seventy to one hundred municipalities in the same condition, which got no benefit whatever from this bonus. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) took great credit to himself last year in connection with this wheat bonus. He said he came down here and told the Prime Minister that this was to be a compensating adjustment for the tariff, and prevailed upon the Prime Minister to give him the bonus. This was to be compensation to the farmers for the increased prices they would have to pay on their purchases on account of the tariff. I want to know if the Minister of Agriculture is using his persuasive powers on the Prime Minister again to get a bonus. We dp not want a bonus on wheat. Of course I am glad to see these people get the higher price; we know that in the north the people had a production of forty and fifty bushels an acre and some of them received S2 or $2.50 an acre through the bonus. We do not begrudge them that, but we sajr that we in the south who had the same trouble putting in our crops and got nothing are also entitled to something. We believe this bonus should have been so much per acre seeded to wheat. It came just at the time when this could have been done without any trouble whatever. The census had just been taken; every fanner had stated the amount of land that he had in wheat; all the government had to do was to take the acreage and say: it is going to be fifty cents or $1 an acre. But instead, the principle was invoked: "he that hath, shall be given, and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath." It is the same policy carried out by this government all the way through-the man who is rich gets more; the poor man is made poorer. Here is the man with a crop getting $1.50, $2, $2.50 an acre, and the man without a crop having to pay more for his seed.


Mr. LOUCKS:: What about the relief they got ?

Farm Relief-Mr. Campbell


James J. Donnelly: I have just spoken about that, for every nickel of relief we had to sign on the dotted line saying we are going to pay it back. Did you sign cm the dotted line for the five cents a bushel bonus, and promise to pay it back? I did not get any of that relief because I did not have any crop, but I bad to pay five cents a bushel more for my seed this year.
All the money I have is invested in land in western Canada, and that land today is not worth anything. Our Prime Minister and the government have not the farmer's viewpoint, not one of them. The Prime Minister has the viewpoint of the industrialist and the capitalist. I am anxious that he should see something of the farmer's viewpoint. If he would do a little farming he would know something of the farmer's difficulties. I will make him an offer. I have four half sections of land, 320 acres each. Two of them are encumbered and two of them are clear. I want to give one of these half sections to the Prime Minister, provided he will farm it for the next five years. I do not say he has to go on the farm himself, but he can have it farmed for the next five years and show each year the return he gets. Farm land is not worth anything today; it is a liability rather than an asset, because you have to pay taxes on it. For the last three years I have not received one dollar by way of return from that $125,000 invested in farm land in western Canada. That is the condition that exists there now. I say to him that if he is going to take this land he should take one of the half sections that is encumbered, because then he will know what the average farmer has to contend with. The average farmer in western Canada has his land encumbered. Let him farm it; let him see what they have to put up with. He can farm it in one of three ways: with oxen, with horses, or with gasoline. I would advise him to go back to the oxen, because if he tries to use gasoline he will have to pay duty on it, and he will find it very expensive. This is just a digression, but I make the offer to the Prime Minister in good faith, and I am willing to turn the land over to him at any time he wants it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


James J. Donnelly: Someone over there is
talking; I can give him a half section too. There are four of them, and he can have any one of them.


An hon. MEMBER:: And make money!


James J. Donnelly: Well, you are a better
man than I am. I have noticed that people
in eastern Canada know more about farming in western Canada than the man who is living there. But I notice, too, that the man who comes from eastern Canada has to spend two or three years in the west before he knows anything at all about farming. The farmers in the west are the most up-to-date in the world, bar none. We do not need anyone from the east to tell us how to farm. We are through with these armchair farmers who go through the country telling the western farmers from the back of an observation car how to farm. All we want is that they get off our backs and give us an even chance. We sell in the markets of the world, and we want to buy as freely as we sell. If they get off our backs and let us do that we will make good. That is the trouble today. Do you know that in western Canada we have been importing, from 1925 to 1930, about $200,000,000 worth of manufactured goods a year from eastern Canada? The duty we have had to pay on these goods is somewhere about 25 per cent. In short, we have been paying 25 per cent more on those goods than we should, and we have been paying that to eastern Canada, an average of $50,000,000 a year. What does that mean? It means that when I go out on the farm and thresh my wheat, I thresh three loads and sell it to the elevator, and it is mine, but the fourth load I have to give to the industrialists of eastern Canada.


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, the various phases of farm relief have been so well and so ably covered by the speakers who have preceded me in this section of the house that I will confine my remarks entirely to one feature of what I consider farm relief.
In dealing with a change in the money system I do not for a moment suggest that this will be a cure for all our ills. As long as the world depression remains as it is, as long as world markets are demoralized, as long as Europe remains the armed camp that it is today, as long as the dark shadow of international debts overhangs the world, I know that there is very little that can be done by this parliament or this government to create better markets in Europe. But I do believe that there are some measures of relief that we can introduce here that will at least alleviate the situation to a great extent. I believe that certain changes in our monetary system will give a large measure of relief, particularly to the agricultural industry, and to a lesser de-
Farm Relief-Mr. Campbell

gree perhaps to all other lines of business. Twenty-five hundred years ago the great philosopher Aristotle, speaking of money, said that its value was determined by its quantity. If money is scarce, its value is high; if there is a superabundance of money, then it is cheap. The price of commodities, of course, varies conversely to the price of money; when money is dear commodity prices are low, and when money is cheap commodity prices are high. It seems that when one speaks of inflation a lot of timid people become frightened; the average man who is not familiar with the term visualizes a person going to a store with a wheelbarrow full of paper money with which to buy groceries. That is an absurd thought. I know something like that did happen in Germany some years ago, but when some of us in this section of the house suggest the issuing of more money we do not propose for a moment that it should be allowed to get out of control. I think perhaps when we speak of inflation we use the wrong term. The word frequently used by bankers and economists today is reflation. I do not know whether or not that is the proper word, but at any rate it indicates that the process of deflation of our currency has been carried to an extravagant degree. All that is asked by those who wish for a change is that it be Drought back to a reasonable level.
Let me give the simple illustration of milk. This commodity may be sold to the public watered to the extent of perhaps twenty-five per cent. I would call that inflated milk. It may be sold just as it comes from the cow; I would call that a proper standard. It may be dehydrated and sold as milk powder; I would call that a condition of deflation. That is the condition of our money today. It has been dehydrated, and we are only asking that it be hydrated or watered back to where it was a few years ago in [DOT]order to bring about a proper price level. The farmer, as well as the ordinary debtor, who contracted obligations three or four years ago finds himself compelled to pay back today about three hundred per cent of the actual debt, and we suggest that in carrying out this deflation or reflation it should be carefully managed.
After all, what have we in Canada today? A few days ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) told us that Canada had not been on the gold basis since 1929. As a matter of fact today we have a currency that is managed. The greatest of all the problems facing us in Canada today, it seems to me, and a problem common to the farmer as well as to the business man, is that of debts. The deflation during the last few years has tre-
mendously increased our debts, public as well as private. What are we facing? Today we are on the horns of a dilemma. One possibility is repudiation of those debts, and that is ngt confined entirely to private debts. If present conditions continue, hundreds of municipalities throughout Canada, and even some provinces, are almost sure to default in their payments in the months to come.
I say we are facing either a repudiation of debts or a reflation of currency to meet that condition. A year or two ago, when some of those in this section of the house suggested certain monetary changes, it was looked upon as bolshevism by some of our orthodox business men and newspapers, but today we find some of those same newspapers getting squarely behind those who advocate that policy. I hold in my hand a copy of the Toronto Saturday Night dated October 1. This is one of the most orthodox publications in Canada, which a few years ago would have poured scorn and ridicule upon any suggested change of this kind. On the front page I find a very excellent article on the money question by John Collingwood Reade. The very heading is arresting; it is:
Liquidation versus Repudiation
Post war conditions call for new financial machinery-Consumption of industry's products must be financed or debt repudiation will follow.
I do not wish to weary the house by quoting extensively from this article, but I do feel that it is worthy of some consideration. This article points out that in dealing with the situation prior to the deflation the United States had two courses open to it in connection with the European debt. They could have accepted goods, the product of European nations, in payment of those debts, or they could have forgiven the debts. There is no possibility of those debts ever being fully paid in gold, and those two courses are open to the United States today. In dealing with the former course, that of accepting goods in payment, the article points out that if the United States had decided to accept goods, those goods could have been distributed to the people of the United States without necessarily affecting their factories at all. It would have given them a larger percentage of goods; a greater quantity of goods would have been delivered to the individual, and the standard of living in the United States would have been increased immeasurably. It points out that a policy of that kind would necessitate certain monetary changes; if the extra amount of goods taken in payment of those debts had been balanced by an increase in currency, those goods could have been distributed to the people of the United States

Farm Relief-Mr. Campbell
without disturbing the business equilibrium of the world. In that case there would have been no depression.
I would ask you to call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before you leave the
chair, Mr. Speaker, I said that at six o'clock I would speak to hon. members as to the possibility of adjournment tonight. It is quite clear that there is no likelihood of adjourning tonight, so with the consent of the house I would like to move that when the house adjourns it stand adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow, Saturday morning. That is the best we can do.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say to the Prime Minister that, speaking for the official opposition, so far as we are concerned we will become a party to any agreement the right hon. gentleman may make with other individuals or groups in the house. If the Prime Minister cannot make an agreement with the other individuals or groups who do not belong to the official opposition, I think his suggestion that we meet in the morning would be best adopted.


Mr. IRVINE:: We did not hear what the
Prime Minister had to say.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that apparently it would be impossible to conclude the business of the house this evening so as to adjourn tonight, and that with the consent of the house I would move that when the house adjourns this evening it stand adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning. The right hon. leader of the opposition suggests that as far as his party is concerned, the official opposition are prepared to expedite business so that we may adjourn this evening, and he suggested also that I communicate with hon. gentlemen in the far corner. I should be glad, with the consent of Mr. Speaker, to have an expression of their views.
Mr. CAMPBELiL: So far as I know there is only one other member who wishes to speak, and he has indicated that he will take only a few minutes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understand that another hon. member desires to speak, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth).


Alfred Speakman: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think he has
spoken on supply. Perhaps under the circumstances it will be better if I do not make the motion now but wait until after we resume at eight o'clock.


Ernest Lapointe: I think the hon. member
will be here tonight.


Milton Neil Campbell: As far as I am aware,
no other hon. member in this section of the house desires to speak except the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Milton Neil Campbell: When the house rose
at six o'clock I was dealing with the money question and was referring to an article in the Toronto Saturday Night of October 1 last. Dealing with the question of how the United States might have collected their international debts, the article states:
It would be necessary for the American people to raise their standard by a very considerable amount if they are to be enabled to absorb the commodities tendered in payment of debt and still purchase the output of their own manufacturers.
The financial system, as at present constituted, is unable to finance the distribution of the enormous import of goods and services to which the existence of accrued debt entitles the American people without demoralizing the market for domestic output.
It goes on to say:
Repudiation is inevitable if one of the other alternatives is not adopted.
Then it says:
The proper manner of dealing with the world situation as it touches the maldistribution of equities and purchasing power is to institute a pragram of financial reorganization throughout the world such that the basis for money is provided by goods seeking a market, and that the necessity of competing for gold by bonusing exports is removed.
Then it comes to what I think is the allimportant part of the whole article. It states:
A superabundance of goods should be an advantage, not an embarrassment. If they are accompanied by the money with which to buy them they are an advantage.
The amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) and which was ruled out of order, dealt with this very question and pointed out that in our opinion money should be based on the actual amount of goods to be distributed, because, after all, that is the only reason we need money-to distribute goods.
To come back to the article, it further states-and this is referring to Canada:
The fact is that we do not really need to borrow anything. In the last analysis, capital is an accumulation of labour, skill and resources. All four of these are already a drug on the Canadian market.
Farm Relief-Mr. Campbell

The concluding paragraph of the article sums up the situation in this way:
A new basis for the creation and distribution of money other than by gold accretions or the manufacture of new liabilities in exchange for bank credit can accomplish this, and it must be accompanied by a ready acceptance of goods so that it does not exhibit the evils of an uncontrolled inflation.
Again I would draw the attention of the house to the fact that this is not from a labour paper; it is not written by an ordinary theorist. It is on the front page of the Toronto Saturday Night.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but it is not an
editorial. It is a contributed article.


Milton Neil Campbell: Unemployment-Mr. Woodsworth
out whether or not their work was efficient, whether or not it was honest, whether or not they were earning their money, and I say without fear of successful contradiction that in the thirty years I have lived in western Canada, I have never seen any government organization which has been more efficient or has better justified its existence than the Saskatchewan relief commission.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Milton Neil Campbell: The men representing the Saskatchewan relief commission in my territory are honest, capable and industrious. They are on the job all the time. There are very few justified complaints against the commission from that part of the country. I can also say the same with respect to the higher officials of the relief commission, the general manager and his assistant, at Regina, in so far as I have been able to review their work. So I can hardly think that the eon. dition of affairs represented by the hon. member for Willow Bunch is a true picture of the operations of the relief commission in that part of the country.


Charles Stephen Booth: I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to call the attention of the house to some conditions which in my judgment are not in the interests of the Canadian people.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) seems to think that I always have a grievance. That may be so, but I would submit that it is not a personal grievance. If I had as my clients the Canadian bankers or the Canadian manufacturers or, we will say, the Canadian canners, perhaps I might find myself in a position in which I could give great praise to the government. But I have been trying to represent certain groups in this country which I consider under our system axe exploited groups. I wish I could truthfully say with one of the foremost leader of socialism in America, the late Eugene V. Debs:
While there is a lower class, I am in it. While there is a criminal element, I am of it. While there is a soul in prison, I am not free.
Or as James Russell Lowell expressed a somewhat similar thought a good many years ago:
If there breathe on earth a slave,
Are ye truly free and brave?
Is true freedom but to break Fetters for our own dear sake?
No! True freedom is to share
All the chains our brothers wear . . .

Again:
They are slaves who fear to speak
For the fallen and the weak;
They are slaves who diare not be
In the right with two or three.
So although, like most members of the house, I should like to have the commendation of the majority of the members, I feel that there are certain matters that I must speak of even if I may be criticized as merely a man with a grievance.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, may I venture to congratulate the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) upon the speech he made this afternoon. It seems to reveal a growing consciousness on his part of the seriousness of the problems now confronting us. My only wish would be that the spirit in which he delivered his speech could be more frequently manifested in this house, because it seems to me that beneath the party fight that occupies so much of our time there are aspirations and heart searchings on the part of a great many. I fancy conditions are rapidly becoming so serious it might well be that irrespective of party lines men are willing to give more serious attention to the real problems facing the people.
May I suggest that during the last few weeks of this session we have been witnessing a gradual curtailment of the rights of private members. This is a regular session, and yet the regular order of proceedings has been set aside. We have not had the opportunity of introducing private members' motions. Private members have had no opportunity to introduce bills, despite the fact that certain legislation was much needed. Further than that, the rules with regard to introducing a matter of urgent public importance have been so strictly interpreted that it has been almost impossible for us to introduce anything under that order. In that connection I refer to only one instance, namely that of the Sun Life management. True, there is a certain charge of criminal libel pending, but I submit that since the report of the superintendent of insurance has been tabled in the house, and since many of the figures which have been circulated to the public have been taken from that report, any hon. member should be allowed to discuss the management and the affairs of the Sun Life. I submit that a suit for libel has very little to do with the responsibility of this house towards the management of a great insurance company. Under the circumstances, all we can do is to point out that the government assumes heavy responsibility in refusing to allow public discussion

Unemployment-Mr. Woodsworth
of the affairs of a company in a position such as that occupied by the Sun Life.
Further than that, the trouble in our penitentiaries has received a great deal of public attention, and many of us would have liked to hear this matter discussed. We are told by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) that since there is a departmental investigation in progress it is unnecessary for us to have any further investigation until the departmental investigation has been completed. I submit that decision is not going to satisfy the 'public. Prisoners are the most helpless of people, because almost every man's mind is set against them. We have been taught to believe that criminals are anti-social and they are placed under such constraint that it is next to impossible for them to vent their grievances It seems to me, therefore, that owing to the fact they are, in a certain sense, wards of society, special protection should be thrown around them by a body such as this House of Commons, and if there is the slightest suspicion of unfair treatment or favoritism there should be the widest possible investigation by an impartial commission. I make these .statements merely in passing, because I do not wish to wait another two months before placing my views on record. It seems to me that the troubles in the penitentiaries offer the government a spendid opportunity to investigate not merely the administration of the penitentiaries, but also the whole matter of the treatment of criminals.
Again I point out that under ordinary circumstances a private member has two opportunities of bringing almost any matter before the house. One is afforded on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of ways and means, and the other on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply. The latter is the occasion upon which I am now speaking.
I repeat that owing to rulings of the chair it has been impossible for us to bring matters before the house in such a way as to obtain a full expression of the views of hon. members on any one question. Resolutions have been ruled out of order. We have been able to do only that which we are now doing, namely voice our protests. I cannot understand why a government would take that attitude, unless it is really afraid of the votes of its own supporters. That is the only reason which occurs to my mind. As I have said, I have come to the conclusion that by such rulings the rights' of private members are gradually being curtailed.
Another instance-we have been discussing matters of taxation. I shall not attempt to labour this point, but it does seem to me that when tariffs are arranged beforehand, and when they cannot be changed, the business of the house lacks reality. Another and perhaps more serious development which shows how far we are getting away from what most of us have thought to be a democratic form of government, lies in the fact that moneys have recently been loaned, without interest, to a private company. It would seem that repayment may be deferred almost indefinitely.
If that action can be taken by the government with regard to one corporation, I suggest it may be taken with regard to others, and it is hard to say just where such a practice may stop. An hon. member suggests we want some of that money. Yes, I do not see why the farmers or the labour men should not have help from the government, if private corporations can get it. Further than that, we must consider the guarantees which have been given to the banks. AVe have witnessed a very great extension of the principle of government by order in council. Indeed I am not quite sure whether sometimes orders in council were issued until considerable time had elapsed after certain gentleman's agreements had been given. Then, if our grain prices should not recover it is quite possible that the government may have committed itself to a policy which, a few years ago, was described as gambling in grain, and which may be very harmful to the financial structure of the country.
Further, according to the statement of the Prime Minister, Canada's foreign policy cannot be discussed while the situation is under review. That is a very serious matter, because the public generally ought to make its opinions felt before questions are finally decided.
Now I should like to come to the more immediate question of conditions among the unemployed in this country. I do not hesitate to take this opportunity, because I did not finish what I had to say on that matter a few evenings ago. With regard to certain charges which I had passed on to me about conditions in the camp at Riding Mountain, let me say this; both the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) and the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy) read statements and correspondence which would seem to show that the conditions stated do not prevail. Personally I have not since then had the opportunity of investigating the matter. If they do not prevail, I am very glad. I would feel very sorry indeed that I read the letter, if

Unemployment-Mr. Woodsworth
the conditions stated do not prevail, but I read it in good faith, a letter from a man whom I have known and who I do not think was trying to deceive me. But if I made a mistake in judging him I am very sorry. I did not read it primarily in order to cast any reflection upon the management of the camps, but rather as an instance of the bad conditions under which a great many of our people are living at the present time. But whether or not one particular camp is bad or good, I submit that the government has not answered the statements we made in regard to the far-reaching nature of the prevailing unemployment, and the unsatisfactory policies that prevail with regard to the treatment of the unemployed. The minister advocates the back to the land movement. I agree that that may be a good thing as far as a few individuals are concerned, but after what we have heard from the prairies as to conditions on the land it is obvious that the back to the land movement is no solution of our general unemployment problem.
Further the Prime Minister announced that we are to have a conference to consider the question of unemployment insurance. As the house knows, I have advocated for a great many years, as have my colleagues, unemployment insurance, but frankly I think we have now almost passed the stage when it can be of any great value. With 800,000 unemployed, how can we possibly make provision for them under a contributory unemployment insurance scheme? They are outside of that scheme altogether. I cannot see how with the small numbers of men employed in industry to-day the necessary reserves can be built up. I shall be very glad indeed if some plan can be worked out between the dominion and the provinces under which a scheme of unemployment insurance can be put into operation. But again I say that is no solution of the problem that is going to face hundreds of thousands of our people during this coming winter.
I have no desire to delay the house, or I should have liked to offer a resolution something in these terms:
That all the words after "that" he struck out and the following substituted:
In the opinion of this house the government should take immediate action to provide for the unemployed either suitable work or adequate maintenance.


William Irvine: May I ask the hon. member a question? If the Dominion government will not assume any responsibility for unemployment insurance, what right have they to decide that it should be contributory?


Charles Stephen Booth: Well, I think the
hon. member would have to ask that of the government. I presume that the announcement meant that the government would assume a certain share of responsibility if matters could be arranged between the governments. I hope it meant that, although I see that some of the papers came out with the announcement next day that the Prime Minister absolutely refused to consider unemployment insurance.
Mr. LaVERGNE :	Has the hon. gentleman those figures by provinces, that 800,000?


Charles Stephen Booth: No; that was the
figure given by the Minister of Labour.
Mr. LaVERGNE: No, that was the number on relief.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Not all workmen.


Charles Stephen Booth: No, that 800,000, as I understood the figures, included men, women and children. But I think there is no doubt whatever, according to the statistics given by my colleague from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) and others, which I have checked carefully, that there are at least three quarters of a million unemployed at the present time.


George Brecken Nicholson: Men, women and
children?


Charles Stephen Booth: No, men and
women who would normally be engaged in work. Since the government has assumed the sole responsibility for dealing with this question, I said the other day that I thought about all we could do at this stage was to try to bring home to the house and to the government the real situation that exists among large numbers of our people.
I received a few weeks ago, from a United Church minister -who has a pastorate in one of the suburbs of Winnipeg, a letter from which I should like to read some extracts. He says:
The weather is still mild though there has been much snow and rain recently. We are glad because we do not have to get coal for a few days yet. There is no money in our house but 75 cents in my purse. The secretary of the church has about $50 he got from the ladies' aid a week or so ago. Some of it is needed to buy coal for the church as the company would give us no more on credit. Our bill for last year is still unpaid. I mean the church bill.
I am in debt, the church is in debt, and a great many of my people are on relief. Those not on relief have been so reduced that they have little more than an existence. The weather has been wet, cloudy and cold and I have often looked at the men working in the ditches here near the church with pity. The outlook for so many of them seems so hopeless. I wonder if

Unemployment-Mr. Woodsworth
a great many of them really realize except in a dim way what is happening. A day or two ago on a cold morning preceding a storm of rain and snow about twenty men came to the corner nearest our house to dig a ditch alongside of the road. A fence and tall residence and the church building gave some protection from the north wind. Half of the men at any time were huddled against this fence. You see they are not clothed for this weather and work and they have no spirit to try to keep up heat by working. This work on the roads and ditches is a most wasteful kind of expenditure. So many, many men accomplishing so little. Working three days a week for "relief tickets" and idling most of the time.
Further on he speaks of general conditions.
The school board have sent out a letter to the parents of boys and girls to say that if the fee of $2 per month is not forthcoming from all able to pay that the high school will be closed in the near future. I understand that the fee is not coming in, so we anticipate the worst. This high school has been going about twenty years and does good work. If closed five teachers will be out of a job. I have a boy in grade II, a bright youth, and I do not know just what we shall do.
A movement is afoot to establish some kind of municipal store in town to supply groceries to the unemployed. The merchants don't like this and are protesting.
Again:
The mounties have been very busy rounding up the transients here east of town and at the Canadian Pacific Railway north of here. Motorcycles are constantly on the run. People despise these men. The children call names at them as they pass on the streets and say "Take the yellow off your legs and put it down your backs." One cold night 66 men were turned over to the local police here. The man on duty is a kind fellow and got them some warm floors to sleep on.-except four of them. These had stopped and sat down on the sidewalk apart from the main body. Ten minutes later the policeman found them all four asleep there.
In the face of that about all we can get from the Minister of Labour is that no one need suffer. But these men are suffering. The minister who writes me this letter goes on to give me some individual cases:
Two of the men in the gang referred to were mechanics in the shops. Both about 29 years old. married, with children. They had started with the company at 16 years and never had done any work except at the machinists' bench.
Another man-
-went into the shops at 16 years old, has been there since, a period of thirteen years. He married three years ago, set up house, paying rent, was laid off last April, went at once to live with his father-in-law and stayed till near June. Then he and the family went to the lake where he has a small cottage, and spent the summer. It was cheap living because he has a pass and could come up every few days for groceries. Now he is back with his father-inlaw and on "relief." A week ago on Monday when out to talk with the men in the ditch- a common practice of mine-I met Ed. He told
me that the company had just begun taking on apprentices at the shops "to take our places" as he expressed it.
Mr. 
 is a superior kind of man about
28 years old. Has been with the company since he was fifteen years old. He is married. His wife was a nurse. They have one adopted
child. 

 has been buying his home and has
put all his surplus into it. He was laid off
in April last. 

 has been getting an odd
day's work in Winnipeg and has been able to maintain himself part of the time. When he cannot get a day's work he goes on "relief." He is a good man for the company, spent considerable money in correspondence courses on the air brake to make himself efficient. There is not much prospect of him going back to work for a long time.
Mr. 
is a Scotchman. He was trained
as a machinist in Glasgow, came to Canada twenty-one years ago. Has been with the C.N.R. or G.T.P. all this time. He was at the bench first, then was in charge of the apprentices. About the year 1922 he took a job as instructor in the first aid department, thus breaking his time. He was laid off at December 31 last. He has had no work since except a few days at the race track as first aid man. He has a wife and two children. They are thrifty people but have put most of their savings, into a house, not a good house. They have had considerable sickness. Mac is now on "relief." He was an elder in our church and at one time superintendent of the Sunday school.
And the Prime Minister meets this situation by quoting from one whom he styles the Man of Galilee, "The poor ye have always with you."
Mr. 
 is our best known citizen over a
period of fifty years in this district. He was born in Old Kildonan. John became a wealthy man overnight as he had a farm partly within
the hands of the townsite of 

. He was
called the millionaire. Perhaps he was rated at about $250,000 about twenty years ago or less. John has seven daughters, no boys. They had a good time for several years. Then things began to go wrong. The money was dissipated or never existed. Well, in short the boom was all over and John's land fell to near normal
price. Meantime he had lost the 

 block in
Winnipeg and much other property. When the manager of the Bank of Commerce here about two years ago fleeced about forty residents to the extent of forty or fifty thousand John lost $1,200. He met me that morning, tears in his eyes and said "It finishes me." John had a house rented here in town at $25 a month. The rent went for groceries. The people moved out about a week ago. It is a big house, out of repair and will not likely be taken again.
Mr. 
is a teacher in our Sunday school
and a good worker of council, has been for about forty years and a member of the school board from the beginning. There are still three girls at home doing nothing. John has no
money but he has property-land at 

 beach.
It is worthless to John. He is now about 66 years old. Suffers from rupture. Works from daylight to dark on his farm to make a living.
And so it goes. I could read to the house a dozen other similar cases.

Unemployment-Mr. Woodsworth


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Will the hon. gentleman
tell us who is the author of that letter?


Charles Stephen Booth: No, I will not. I
said it was written by a minister of the United church in a suburb near Winnipeg.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Then the hon. member
ought to be ashamed of himself for reading something the author of which he cannot tell.


Charles Stephen Booth: The hon. gentleman may have his own opinion in that regard. I am reading certain extracts from this letter because I think they serve to bring home to the house the actual conditions which exist in my part of the country. Personally I could give scores if not hundreds of similar instances.


An hon. MEMBER:: Give them.


Charles Stephen Booth: No, I am not going to give them. Almost the entire district around


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I rise to a point of order. Is it customary for an hon. member of this house to read extracts from a letter the author of which he refuses to give. I should like a ruling on that point.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I think the
hon. member should either give the name or take personal responsibility for the facts stated.


Charles Stephen Booth: I am quite willing to take responsibility for the statements I have read. It seems very strange that with these conditions prevalent the Prime Minister can have the effrontery to quote scripture. He says, "The poor ye have always with you,'' as though the Man of Nazareth could be possibly conceived as condoning our indifference to the welfare of our fellow men. Since the Prime Minister has set the precedent perhaps I might take the liberty of quoting a passage or two of scripture:
Woe unto you also, ye lawyers!
The reference, of course, is to ecclesiastical lawyers, but since the Prime Minister has undertaken to interpret scripture perhaps he might be included in that class.
Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: What about the false
prophets?


Charles Stephen Booth: Yes, there is also a good deal to be said about false prophets. If

the hon. gentleman cares to know it, the author of that last passage is Luke. May I quote the next passage, in all seriousness:
For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. . . . Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of these least, ye did it not to me.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: How about the next part?


Charles Stephen Booth: There are certain
gentlemen who think this is a matter for great levity. I think it is a time for common sense. I believe it is time to consider the very foundations of this civilization which we commonly call Christian. There are those who seem to think that any discussion of actual existing affairs is an attempt to wreck our civilization, I venture to say that it is the only possible way in which we can save our civilization. Before now I have quoted in this house that old favourite passage from James Russell Lowell, which I venture to quote again tonight:
. . . Think ye that building shall endure
Which shelters the noble and crushes the poor?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Stephen Booth: You think that
may be met with derision? Very well. I am firmly convinced, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite within the range of possibility that if this thing goes on very much longer a great many of us will suffer very greatly indeed because of the fact that we have neglected those in our community who today are suffering. I wish hon. gentlemen opposite could understand that I am not merely censuring one government or another. I wish they could understand that tonight I am not thinking so much in terms of politics as I am in terms of the needs of these people. Hon. gentlemen do not seem able to comprehend that point of view. I urge that we each have our responsibility. There is not one of us who would be sleeping in as good a bed, or eating as good food, or going on with our business as easily as we do, if we took seriously some of these ethical teachings which I have ventured to quote in the house tonight. I think the time is coming when if we refuse to do these things because of higher motives we shall be forced to do them because of the effect of the economic laws which are working out a new type of life.


Mr. MORAND:: Who has refused them?


Charles Stephen Booth: An hon. gentleman asks: "Who has refused them?" I say

Unemployment-Mr. Woodsworth
the fact is that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are not able to live a decent, normal life. We ask parliament to take some responsibility in this matter.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: They are taking it.


Charles Stephen Booth: Some one speaking on behalf of the government says that the government are taking responsibility. They are, in form, taking responsibility, and I would not say a word in reproach if they were meeting fully the needs, but in my judgment the measures that they have adopted are not meeting the needs. To be perfectly frank, I doubt very much whether under the existing competitive system they can meet the needs. That is why some of us look forward to a radical and complete change in our whole economic system. However, I take it for granted for the moment that the present economic system is equal to meeting the needs. This seems to be the prevalent impression in the house. On that ground I charge that our present policies are not meeting the needs.
The needs of the people should have prior consideration. You may call that mere demagogy, if 3'ou like, but, as I have said ever since I entered public life, when the profits of shareholders or the interests of big business come into conflict with the needs of men, women and children, then I have urged that the needs of men, women and children should have priority. I know that is considered to be a very extreme doctrine, but I firmly believe in it.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Everybody believes in
it.


Charles Stephen Booth: We are not putting it into practice. If we were we would not have hundreds of our young people walking the street without any chance of continuing their education, some of them not knowing where the next meal is to come from; we would not have thousands of people in the jungles as we have today, herded together under conditions not even sanitary, and wholly unsatisfactory from the point of view of the standards of good citizenship; we would not have the riots such as have occurred during the last few weeks in a number of our western cities. These men who have been rioting, or the majority of them, were until a few years ago good workmen. If we go on in this way it will not be very long before their spirit will be broken and we shall have a large group of unemployable people and a considerable number of criminals. I may be right or I may be wrong, but if I
think that way, surely I am under an obligation to state my thoughts as forcibly as I can.
The other day the Prime Minister took the standpoint of property and property rights, and I feel it requires some hammering to get the other point of view effectively before the public. He said:
We believe that the honest efforts of man should be rewarded. Since when has it become a crime to acquire property? The initiative of genius should be rewarded.
That is his defence of our present economic arrangements, but I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the ordinary citizen is not having his honest efforts rewarded; he is not having a chance these days even to work. He has taken his full share in the building up of this country, he has worked upon our railroads, in our lumber camps and in our mines; he has done his fair share of the hard work, and yet when we reach a depression he is laid aside and has no chance of receiving a reward for his honest efforts. The Prime Minister asked: "Since when has it become a crime to acquire property?'' My submission is that the vast majority of the people on relief, and many more in a desperate condition of anxiety, have no chance of acquiring property. Indeed they have been forced to watch their homes slip away from them; they have had no chance to keep even the little property they have acquired. Why should it be right for a wealthy man to be protected by the government in his possession of property while the poor man receives no assistance, or very little, when his property is in danger? It is all very well to talk about the initiative of genius being rewarded, but let me point out to the house that there are hundreds of young people today who have no opportunity to develop their initiative.
I was talking with a conductor the other day and he told me that he wished I could find some job for his girl. He said that she had been trained as a school teacher, that he had given her the best chance possible, but now she was at home and if she remained there much longer she would become absolutely discouraged. He said that as long as he had a roof over his head she would not suffer hunger. The position of this girl is that of thousands of other young people who have been prepared to enter the professions. Many, though, have not the shelter of a parental roof.
I think of a young man in my home city whom I met only a few weeks ago. Two years ago he graduated from a university in civil engineering. He had always been willing to

Unemployment-Mr. Woodsworth
undertake any kind of work; as a matter of fact he had gone out to do unskilled labour in a foundry, but the depression having become more severe he was turned out of even that job. His father had worked hard for many years to give him a chance at a college education. The father was a poor workingman and could not afford to support his son in idleness, and this boy had drifted around doing casual jobs, even thinking of whether or not he should commit suicide. At a matter of fact the only thing that saved him was a chance to get a position in Camp Borden which lasted two or three months. That offered relief for the time being and he took it because it tided him over until the spring time. He told me that almost the entire membership of his graduating class were in a similar position to that in which he found himself. If we really believed that the interests of the people should take priority over property rights, then we would immediately take such steps as would provide the unemployed either with suitable work or with adequate maintenance.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour to make my remarks very brief. During the course of this session I have covered in the main some of the activities of the various governments throughout Canada directed toward taking care of the situation which exists in our country, and I have spread upon the record, in so far as the departments of government can collect information, the situation with which this government is endeavouring so earnestly to cope. I have listened to the addresses made in the house, and while I do not think we should complain about the descriptive phrases and at times almost extreme language which has been used, it has occurred to me very frequently that perhaps the addresses would have been more effective and more helpful if hon. members had taken the trouble to inquire from the departments of government and thus get a more complete picture of the situation as reflected in dependable governmental sources, rather than base their remarks upon fragmentary information as disclosed in letters and newspaper clippings which have been so frequently resorted to.
I was considerably disappointed when I listened to the criticism of the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh), and I believe also the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer), in connection with the administration of the lands owned in part by the soldier settlement board. As the house knows, a complete reorganization of that department was effected some eighteen months ago. I say

with a great deal of confidence that the reorganized force of that department is very efficient and is carrying on its work in a manner that, I believe, commends itself to the great majority of the settlers under its control.
The hon. member for North Battleford made some startling statements, statements that distressed me greatly, wiith respect to two or three settlers in his locality and with regard to the efforts made by the Saskatchewan government, with a contribution from this government, toward returning to the land people who had previously had agricultural experience, who expressed a desire to return to the land and who were then receiving direct relief in the cities. My mind, however, was relieved and my anxiety in large measure dispelled when I found, after the interrogation of the hon. member for North Battleford by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion), that the hon. member for North Battleford, having made those statements, in order to prove them and to hammer them home in the way that probably only he could do, proceeded to read from a newspaper, owned and edited by him, a report made on the cases by himself. During my business life I have had some acquaintance with the proper method of proving a case, and if his method is a proper one, then I suggest to the hon. member for North Battleford that I would not have a .chance at all against such an argument as he advanced. Can anyone imagine a man standing in the House of Commons, criticizing what I believe to be a very efficient department of government, a department that is doing a great work in Canada, and particularly at a time like this, making charges such as he made, and then attempting to prove them by reading his own report in his own newspaper? I can say only that my anxiety in the matter was at once dispelled. In order that the house may not labour under any misapprehension with respect to the attitude of the department in regard to not only the soldier settlers but all the settlers under the jurisdiction of the soldier settlement board, let me say that since this government came into power, of more than 20,000 settlers on lands in part owned by the government-and I say that because the settlers have an equity in those lands-in respect of only three-tenths of one per cent have the government felt they should take some action in order to protect the equity of the crown in their holdings.
Just one word more with respect to the situation at Lloydminster referred to by the hon. member. An organization was formed there among the soldier settlers; they com-

Unemployment-Mr. Gordon
munieated with me and they sent out rather an alarming circular as to what attitude they intended to adopt with respect to discharging their obligations to the crown. But when they met, there apparently was sound sense among most of the settlers, and those who organized the union were not able to put across the sentiments expressed in the circular. We received from this union a repont of the meeting, and the suggestions in it are almost identical with the policy that has been followed by the soldier settlement board since this government came into power. The director of soldier settlement is constantly moving from coast to coast interviewing the field staff in connection with the work, and with reference to the oustanding case brought forward by the hon. member for North Battle-ford, the director instructed his field superintendent at Edmonton to go down at once to that locality and investigate it. Whom does the house suppose he took with him? None other than the hon. member for North Battleford. The superintendent took him right down to that settler and let him investigate the condition for himself. He knew the arrangement at that time and after seeing the condition for himself, he drove home with the superintendent and did not have a single word [DOT] of criticism to offer. Yet he spreads that story upon the record here for the edification of hon. members, which record read by the uninformed would, if not contradicted, do great injury to the work being carried on by this department.
Within the time allotted to me it would be utterly impossible to cover the various criticisms of the government that have been made from the other side of the house. The colonization at home scheme that I in my innocence thought would meet with the approval of the people of this country does not seem to commend itself to some hon. members on the other side. I have listened to speeches by some western members and I know from my own knowledge that certain of the pronouncements made in this chamber by a number of representatives of western Canada-not all of them by any means-have resulted in those who heretofore had confidence in the financial stability of the western provinces, withdrawing their support from them, selling the bonds of those provinces and investing the proceeds in other securities. I put it to those members from western Canada who day in and day out seem to take a great delight in condemning their own provincial governments, condemning their own country, condemning the people in it-because painting pictures such as they paint is the worst sort of condemnation they can offer of 53719-104
their own community and province: Can they go home to their people and be happy in the thought that they have stood up in this chamber and spread upon the record a picture of conditions in their own part of the country calculated only to condemn it in the eyes of anyone outside those provinces? I offer the suggestion that that sort of thing should stop. I am not unacquainted with western Canada. I was in the west for a considerable period of time, long before the arrival there of some of the hon. members who have talked so earnestly, or at least so loudly, about conditions in those provinces, and I still have many acquaintances throughout that part of Canada. I do not hold any such views of western Canada as do those members. I think I can go out there now and meet many thousands of farmers who of course are not getting the prices we would like to see them get for their produce. That is most lamentable, and it is something everyone in the house, I am sure, will do everything possible to try to correct. But I know thousands upon thousands of western farmers are absolutely firm in their belief that by accepting this temporary condition, and by exhibiting that courage which they in common with the other peoples of Canada so abundantly possess, they will overcome the present depression, and western Canada will again be prosperous and rightfully styled the golden west.
We have heard what perhaps I might call strange doctrines preached at this time, but that is nothing new in the history of the world. Anyone who has taken the time and had the opportunity to review the past must have found that the great writers of those days wrote just as learnedly about the difficulties besetting the world then as the writers of to-day. Times of general depression always bring into bold relief new corrective ideas, and at times permit people to offer as a corrective an extremity of view to which in my humble opinion we should not give too much heed, because in any situation extremity of view and extravagance of statement are not helpful.
We find some people, for instance, suggesting that there should ibe shorter hours of labour, by which they claim labour would be better distributed. I am not going to quarrel seriously with that. I would not mind myself if some of the duties I am trying to discharge were divided up and someone else shouldered some of them for a while. I think it is fair to say that if it were possible to cut down the hours of labour and divide up the work to the point where labour sufficient to keep a man's body and mind in good condition were available it would probably be a good thing

Unemployment-Mr. Gordon

But on the one hand we are highly industrialized and on the other, an agricultural country and a producer of raw products. There are other countries just as highly industrialized as Ours which we have to meet in competition in the markets of the world. If it is still to maintain its standard of living, what possible chance has Canada, acting alone in reducing the hours of labour, of competing in the markets of the world with the manufacturers of other countries? The thing is so simple that it does not admit of argument The situation was very well put in the British House of Commons on the 20th of October last by Sir Henry Batterton the Minister of Labour, where he said:
Experience shows that an international convention regulating hours of labour will not be ratified by the countries which are industrially important unless it can be so framed as to make provision for the veTy real difficulties that must be encountered in its practical application. His Majesty's government, therefore, while favouring a full examination of the problem of reducing hours of work without reducing the standard of living of the wage-earning population, have opposed and will continue to oppose any attempt to improvise a convention which evades the difficulties instead of solving them. Such a convention will be of no effect save to cause friction and misunderstanding and to delay the solution of the problem with which it professes to deal.
If by international action such a thing could be brought about, I do not think there is a shadow of doubt that this government and this country would be found supporting it.
It has also been suggested-and I listened very carefully to the addresses made on this subject-that we should inflate our currency. I am not going to offer much on that subject, because frankly I feel that while I can build up a theory on both sides I am not sure that either of them is sound. Quotations from almost every known writer on economics have been read in this house, but I believe I am sufficiently well acquainted with the writers on economic subjects and their works to say that I could take a dozen of the foremost authorities on the subject and find half a dozen on the one side and half a dozen on the other. I have no doubt that in the other legislative halls of the world the pronouncements on this subject dealt with by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) are being proclaimed with a solemnity which ought to carry weight in those chambers. I know this, that there are many things that might be said in favour of the view which has been put forward. At the moment we do not think it desirable-I am speaking of the government- to inflate the currency of this country.
The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), who gave such an interesting address
IMr. Gordon.]
this afternoon, with his usual skill and care suggested-I took his words down and I noticed the flirtatious look that he gave to his left when he said it-


William Daum Euler: Order. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, whether that is parliamentary language.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: He said that there should be a reasonable and controlled degree of inflation. That is a very subtle description. I suggest to the hon. member that I would almost be able to subscribe to it if he would leave out the word "controlled." If my experience in business means anything, just start to give anything away and let the impression go abroad that the well will never run dry, and you will have a great deal of difficulty in controlling the importunings of those who would seek to dip into it.


William Daum Euler: Does my hon. friend suggest that it should be uncontrolled?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Not at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was wondering if the minister was speaking out of his experience with reference to the blank cheque.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I congratulate the right hon. gentleman for his very valuable contribution to the debate,
I have listened to another great grievance which has been commented upon from time to time in reference to the great corporations of this country-private corporations, but still great-which from time to time split their stock and probably get an authorized increase in their capaitalization. I am sure I made reference to what my idea of such a thing was when I presented to the house the report of the investigation into the Beau-ha,mois project. In substance I said then that every dollar added to the capital cost of the development of any industry or national resource meant that the product of that industry or resource would be increased in cost to the consumer to the extent of the interest required to carry that additional charge, and my remarks brought forth a certain amount of applause from those who sit to the furthest left of the Speaker. Now I offer this as a suggestion. I hear from many members opposite about the iniquity of watered stock in private corporations, and I am in thorough agreement with those who advance the argument respecting watered stock. But, I ask, what is the difference in principle between private corporations watering their stock and the country watering its currency? Hon. members who would condemn the private corporation will commend the government

Unemployment-Mr. Gordon
for doing the same thing in principle. They are willing to approbate and reprobate in the same breadth. I may be wrong, but I can see no difference in principle.


William Irvine: The hon. gentleman is quite wrong in his interpretation of what other people are discussing.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Perhaps I am. Then, there is a class of people in Canada concerning which no mention has been made, so far as I know, by any of the speakers who at this time have condemned the government's action. I have reference to the type of man who is shouldering great responsibilities in providing for his wife and family, the man who, unlike many others who during the past ten years attempted to hitch his bronco to the financial cart for the wildest ride in history, has often denied himself the necessities of life in order that he might set aside a fund in the form of government bonds, an annuity or otherwise to provide for his old age or against misadventure or death in the interests of those for whom he may be responsible. There are many people in Canada such as I have described, but I have not heard one word about them. A number of members are flirting with ideas which have been projected, but with which I did not think they would be in entire accord. I venture to hazard the opinion that when the class of persons to which I have referred read of the advanced socialization suggested by some hon. members, and hear of the state undertaking to provide this, that and the other thing, they will wonder: "What was the use of it all? Why should I have tried to live a disciplined life? Why should I have tried to scrape and save to provide against the future and to give my family a fair chance to get along in life?" Those are the people who have not had consideration in this chamber, and I think it is high time they had. We should have at least some consideration for people of that type.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What is the difference between one who has put his savings into government bonds and one who has invested in a farm?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The government has been earnestly endeavouring to see that those who require relief are given it. I should like very shortly to spread on the record what the government has endeavoured to do since this situation developed. I do not wish to dwell upon the facts, but would begin by saying that undoubtedly Saskatchewan has had a very difficult time. There was a time when 53719-104^
this government, because of successive crop failures in that province, was providing sustenance for upwards of 300,000 people. There was no hesitancy about dealing with that situation. The government, realizing its responsibility, took hold of it promptly and spent huge sums of money, because such expenditures were necessary in order that those living in the stricken areas would have a chance either to move somewhere else or to try again. This government did not hesitate to accept its burden and to endeavour to discharge what it considered to be its responsibility.
The complaint has been made and this government has been condemned because in the province of Saskatchewan notes were taken for relief. In the first place, let me say that the federal government had nothing to do with the matter; but I should like to add that I am not condemning the Saskatchewan relief commission for its action, for the very obvious reason that the people they were helping were not indigents, in the true sense of the word the people who were the victims of thal great tragedy are sturdy, wholesome, courageous Canadians, people who are not accustomed to taking money from governments, or from anybody else, without repaying. I cannot tell how many, but at least a great many of them said, "Here are our notes; we will pay you this money back." In face of that, what could the Saskatchewan relief commission do? Although reports are not available, I am told that many of those people are already making provision for retirement of advances. I can see nothing in that transaction concerning which the Saskatchewan relief commission, the government of that province or this government, should be condemned.
Throughout Canada appeals were made to this government the substance of which were: that the depression was general, and that it had cast a great burden upon the provinces- not such a burden, I suggest, as would take it out of the ordinary rule that provinces and municipalities have a primary responsibility; but there was such a general need that this government felt, and I think properly, that they should contribute to the provinces according to the need. What has the government done? In the four western provinces, either by way of direct non-recoverable advances or in recoverable loans, the Dominion government has supplied the sum of $73,844,130.98. And this very day, when the government was being condemned by the hon. member for Willow Bunch,, in a speech that was

Unemployment-Mr. Gordon
delivered in perhaps as extravagant a style as I ever listened to, the province in which he lives is asking for further assistance in financing its affairs, and its application is under consideration by this government.


Mr. MacDOUGALL:: He voted against it.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: For all of Canada this government has provided the sum $115,631,733.80 mp to date for the purpose of tiding the provinces, the municipalities and the people generally over this trying period. That money does not come from people who have not got it. The tribute must be levied upon every Canadian citizen. It is those who have who will contribute that money, not those who have not. And I suggest to those who would criticize that that is no mean contribution; that this government might easily be criticized for having pledged the credit of the state in too large an amount. But as far as the government is concerned it is ready to meet any criticism of that sort.
I could enlarge upon this picture and give the details of how this money was distributed. We know from reports that come in weekly from sources throughout Canada that the giving of this help to the provinces, to the municipalities, and through them to the individual, has not created, as was suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), the fear that the people will not know where their next meal is coming from. Not at all. Because as far as this government is concerned, as I have before stated in this house, we will continue to see that the people of this country will not suffer for fuel and food and the necessities of life. And while we are doing it I suggest to all hon. members of this house, regardless of their political persuasion, that when they go home and meet conditions that are perhaps not as they would like them to be, they should not be content to say to their constituents:	"If you are not getting along very
well, blame it on those terrible Tories!" That is not helpful. Let every hon. member go to his constituency as a Canadian, as a lover of his fellow man, as a lover of his country, and say to his people:	"The government, the
state, is assuming a tremendous responsibility. The state is willing to continue to assume it, but you as an individual have a duty to perform to yourself, to your family, to your community, to your country. Do not lose the opportunity; do anything you can to help, because individual effort will help probably more than any other effort that can be put forth. That is the right attitude, the attitude which ultimately will prevail in this
	.
country, in spite of the speeches that we have listened to. I have been through Canada perhaps as thoroughly as any member of this house. I have had to do with its economic complexities from many angles. I know the people of Canada, and I know that they are well aware of the opportunities that are here. But this dislocation of world affairs came down in the year 1929 so rapidly and with such compelling force that even those in the highest places in finance, in industry, in all the various vocations of life, were totally unable to conceive of the immensity of the problem that they would shortly have to face.
I did not intend to take even this much time, but I say in conclusion: Go out from this chamber as Canadians; do not be content to say as partisans that the government has failed, but carry the message to the Canadian people that all is not lost by any means; that we have a great country, and a small population; that we have wonderful assets, tremendous resources for the people to make use of. As far as this government is concerned it will put forth every effort, yes, it will go to its last available dollar to see that those who are unable to take advantage of those opportunities will not suffer during this coming winter.


William Irvine: May I ask a question? I
understood the minister to say that some farmers were willing to do without in order that they might come through. Would he be kind enough to suggest what he thinks the farmer should do without in order to come through?
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Legislation-House of Commons-To provide for payment to George A. Touche and Company for professional services in connection with the gasoline inquiry, $11,233.


Alan Webster Neill: I would like some information about item No. 3. What was this $11,233 for? What services were rendered to that amount?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is the account of the auditors for their services and disbursements in connection with the gasoline inquiry.


Alan Webster Neill: I gathered that from the
description, but I want to know what value we got for it. I consider that it is an enormous, an outrageous charge for the services rendered.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: All I can say is that the
amount was approved by the Clerk of the House in the ordinary course and submitted

Suppl y-Le gislation
for payment, and the charges were of the usual character. The services were rendered by a very reputable company. We have the detailed account rendered.


Alan Webster Neill: That is what I would like
some information about. They must have a whale of a reputation that enables them to charge $11,233. Did the account as rendered give any indication of how many men were employed, and for what period and at how much per day or per minute?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes. I have not the
accounts before me, but I must point out to my hon. friend that the account was incurred by a committee of this house, not by the government. I could get the account for my hon. friend if he would like to see it.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not think for a moment that when the committee authorized the employment of these gentlemen they had any conception that it would cost any such amount.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I may say that like the
hon. gentleman I thought the amount was very large. But they were instructed by the committee to do the work. The charges were tariff charges. We did not ask that the account be taxed, because you cannot tax it, but we asked that it be moderated. However, the account is here as it stands, and they have complained bitterly that it has not been paid. We have no money with which to pay it without the vote of the house, and that is why it is here.


Alan Webster Neill: I would suggest, then, that
we do not pass this item and ask them to wait until the spring. They would have had to wait in any case but for this special session.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They thought provision
had been made last session, though as a matter of fact it had not.


William Irvine: I recall when this account
was presented to the committee. What the Prime Minister has said is quite correct. We went into the items and discovered that instead of the account being greater than was customary for such a company, they had given us a very material reduction because of the depression. Of course I objected to the charges myself; I thought they were much more than I would be able to earn in an hour or two, but that was their charge and we could not get any further.


James J. Donnelly: This account is for the
work of auditors we had looking into the question of gasoline. These men were sent out by the committee; first they went to the
British American and the MoColl-Frontenac companies, where they spent five or six days. Later they were sent to Sarnia and Halifax to investigate certain definite points for the committee, concerning the price of crude oil, the amount of crude oil taken by the various refineries, the amount of gasoline obtained from the oil, and the prices of the gasoline and of the oil. They spent a good deal of time there and when they came back to the committee we asked them what they had found with regard to the British American and McColl-Frontenac Company. They told us they had found nothing and that they had no report to make, but said they would go back again if the committee wished. I think anyone looking up the records of that inquiry will find that the auditors said they had no report to make in connection with the McColl-Frontenac and Imperial Oil companies. If two experts had been sent out by Imperial Oil to justify a higher price for gasoline they could not have found two men who could have done the work better. These men reported that the Imperial Oil Company were not charging too much; that they were making a profit of only one cent a gallon, and that the price of gasoline in Canada was due to the bootlegging of gasoline from the United States, though I do not know where they got that information. At that time the committee said, "We do not want that sort of information; we want the facts and figures in order to draw our own conclusions." As a matter of fact the auditors brought in their conclusions without the actual figures. After arguing with them for a whole day we did manage to obtain a few figures, and they told us that if we wanted the other information they could figure it out but they did not have it prepared. So far as the committee was concerned the work done by those men was very unsatisfactory, though no doubt it was satisfactory to Imperial Oil and the other companies in general.
A minority report was brought in following that inquiry. The price of gasoline is disturbing the people from one end of Canada to the other; in fact it is disturbing people the world over. The price of gasoline in the world has followed the price of wheat, of coffee, of cotton and of many other things. Standard Oil of New Jersey has been looked upon as the tool of John D. Rockefeller, and for years the people of the United States have tried to pass legislation curtailing its activities and profits. They were not successful, but in 1929 or 1930 mother nature took a hand and more crude oil was produced than the world could consume. Consequently in 1930 or 1931 the price of gasoline fell all over
Sttppl y-Le gelation

the world, and continued to fall until crude oil was selling in Oklahoma and Texas, the mid-continent field, for ten cents a barrel. In Canada, however, the price of gasoline was maintained1; this is the only country in the world where the price remained high. It was kept up by the tariff and dumping duty imposed by this government. Last year, however, when the United States found that too much crude oil was being produced, they began to curtail production. They said, "We will cut down production and increase the price," and this did work to a certain extent. Finally they woke up and found this to be a world condition, so they called together the oil producers of the world with the idea of cutting down production all over the world in order to keep up prices. Many of these oil producers would not enter into a combine of that kind, with the result that the world price for oil remained1 low. We find now that the United States are asking for a duty against outside gasoline in order to increase the price in that country.
The government kept up the price of gasoline in Canada by four or five cents a gallon, which made it possible for Imperial Oil to declare a profit of over $17,000,000 last year. Standard Oil of New Jersey owns some sixty-nine per cent of the shares of Imperial Oil of Canada, and that company received some $12,700,000 in profits from the Canadian company. In other words, though they suffered a loss of $4,000,000 on all their operations, Standard Oil of New Jersey were able to declare a profit of $8,000,000; they took $12,700,000 from our Canadian consumers in order to do so. I think it is time we in Canada showed a little of that red blood about which the Minister of Railways spoke, and stopped being cheque signers and dividend payers for our American cousins.
At the time the committe was sitting the Bhell Oil Company was bringing in gasoline at four and a fraction cents a gallon at Montreal. They were selling that gasoline wholesale, in tank car lots, for something like 12 cents a gallon. I had a private individual in Ottawa go to the Department of National Revenue to inquire what dumping duty would be put on gasoline coming from Roumania, but we could not get any information. They said: "We will have to find out what their money is worth and what is the exchange rate before we can tell you what the charge will be." The result was that nobody attempted to bring in gasoline from any other part of the world for fear of the exchange being so high that they would not be able to make a profit.
I Mr. Donnelly.]
Not long ago the government saw fit to take off the dump duty on gasoline, but at the same time they passed orders in council stating that gasoline brought in from the United States by an ordinary consumer would have to pay the wholsesale price there plus the excise tax of one cent per gallon on the American gallon, equal to one and a quarter cents on the Canadian gallon. When I asked the Minister of National Revenue about this he said that no orders in council had been passed, that this was something done by the Liberal government. It is true that the Liberal government did pass legislation which fixed a fair market value at whatever the price was in the country of origin, but why did this government pass orders in council stating that the value for duty purposes would be the wholesale price at the refinery plus the American excise tax of one cent per gallon? I understand that American refiners do not pay that one cent tax when gasoline is exported, but the government has said that if the consumer brings in gasoline he must pay the wholesale price, plus that one cent tax. If he cannot make the American refiner take that tax, it must be paid to the customs. This means a one and a quarter cent protection for the oil refineries in the Dominion of Canada. In fact, when added to the other charges, this protection amounts to from one and three quarter cents to two cents per gallon. Our oil companies are enjoying this protection in addition to the regular duty of two and a half cents per gallon. I asked the minister why orders in council were passed providing that the refiners would not have to take into account this one cent excise tax, and he said that no such order was passed. The supplement to appraisers' bulletin number 3897, reads as follows:
On importations of gasoline to be used bona fide for blending purposes and not for resale as a motor fuel in the condition as imported, the excise tax should not be included in the fair market value for regular or special duty purposes.
Why did the government make that exception with regard to refiners or blenders? Why did they insist that the Canadian consumer who brings in gasoline must pay the one cent excise tax? I submit that this was done in the hope that additional protection would be given to the refineries and the Canadian public would not be the wiser.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Donnelly) said something about the report itself not being satisfactory, but I shall not attack it upon that ground. These accountants were entitled to make their

Supply-Legisla t ion
own report but it may well be considered uunsatisfaotory on the ground that they were asked to obtain certain information which it would seem they did not obtain. I followed the proceedings of this committee very closely, and that is the conclusion I have come to: all they brought back was a whitewashing report which they were not asked for. A large portion of the accountant's report was included bodily in the report of the committee.
I have in my hand a copy of what I assume the Minister of Finance was alluding to when he said he had an itemized account. This account would seem to cover the services not of a man, an individual or a firm, but of a whole army. We have the whole bunch here with the excepution perhaps of the furnace man-there is no amount low enough to cover the services of such a man. The first item is for the principal, 58 days and 3 hours ait $50 per day, total $2,921.43. Luckily there was only one principal. The next item is for supervisor, 73 days and 2 hours at $35 per day, total $2,565. I am speaking only from memory, but I believe there were some twenty days upon which the committee sat. Of course these men would be working when the committee was not sitting, but seventy-three working days would represent over two months and a half. The itemized account states that the charges are for a seven hour diay, and it might be possible that in their integrity and industry these men worked fourteen hours per day. Otherwise I cannot see how they could have worked two and one-half months during the time the committee was sitting. Then we come to first assistants. Apparently there were a number of these, because the account is for 123 days at $25 per day. Then there are second assistants, 43 days at $20 per day; third assistants at $15 per day, and fourth assistants at $10 per day. Unfortunately we did not have many fourth assistants; the account is only for 14 days. The total account amounts to $9,756.46. In addition to this there are out-of-pocket expenses totalling $1,477, but if there -are vouchers to cover this amount, I cannot object. The hon. member to my left mentioned something about a price cut owing to the depression buit I hate to think what this account would have been if there had not been a depression.
Either the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister stated that these rates were according to the recognized scale for professional accountants. Thait is quite interesting, but there is also a recognized scale for doctors and lawyers. Jf you happen to be dissatisfied with
either your lawyer's or doctor's bill and try to dispute it, the first lawyer or doctor to whom you go will tell you that you have not been charged much more than half what you could have been charged under the schedule. When a doctor charges you $2.50 or $5 per visit, you will find that his schedule calls for a charge five times that. These schedules are arranged by these close corporations but they are never enforced, and that fact is to the credit of both the lawyers and the doctors.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No bargain was made antecedent to the employment -being given to this firm. They have rendered an account which was referred to me personally and I could find no way by which it could be reduced. If we do not pass it we will be compelled to grant a fiat and they will recover the money in a court of law.


Alan Webster Neill: If that is the case, there is no use in my wasting the time of the committee. At the same time, it is a good thing to uncover these things as they can -be remembered the next time we need the services of accountants.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions-Pensions to families of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who lost their lives while on duty-further amount required-
To provide for a pension to Mrs. Catharine Mildred Ralls, equal to one-half of her late husband's daily regimental pay and ration allowance, from July 6, 1932, to March 31, 1933, $497.65.
To provide compassionate allowances to Victor. Everett, Doreen and Stanley Ralls, at $30 per annum each, from July 6, 1932, to March 31. 1933, $88.43.
William Irvine: I should like to direct the attention of the minister to a case which I consider to -be very conservative. I -brought this to his attention this afternoon by presenting the particulars to his private secretary, but I think I might be .permitted just one moment to state the facts of the case I have in mind. This is a veteran of the South African and Flanders wars. He was gassed but was not considered as pensionable. After discharge he was confined to hospital; and the authorities, after investigating his case, undertook to defray his hospital expenses and granted him a compassionate allowance of $20 per month. The point I desire to raise is that this $20 per month has been withdrawn. The communication which I received and which I passed on to the minister was from the president of the Lacombe board of trade, a man who I believe is thoroughly acquainted with the veteran and in whom I have the utmost confidence. I do not know this particular returned soldier; I -am relying entirely
Supply-Mail Subsidies

upon the evidence of the doctors and also the plea made by the president of the board of trade of the town of Lacoim.be. I merely wish to urge that the Minister of Pensions reconsider the withdrawal of that compassionate allowance. The man in question is suffering from cancer and I do not think he can last very long. He is unable to work and has no other resources. I do not know whether the minister is listening to me or not, but I hope he will reconsider the discontinuance of that compassionate allowance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions- British Columbia and Australia and/or China, services between-further amount required, $35,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: To what companies is this subvention going?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The British Canadian
Steamship Company, Limited. The contract is dated August 15, 1932. It was given by tender.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is this amount additional to what they are already receiving, or a new item?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is to carry on the contract during the period of the winter months.


Alan Webster Neill: It is a different contract, is it not?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: There has been some agitation in Vancouver-and I presume it has come to the minister's notice-amongst a number of unemployed white seamen. They say: Why cannot these subsidized steamers employ whites exclusively? I have not at the moment the figures before me, but I was astonished to find the numbers of orientals that are employed on these boats running out of Vancouver, all of which are more or less subsidized on this line or carrying mail. I think the number of orientals ran up into several thousands; I think it was 5,000, if my memory serves me aright, although I would not care to guarantee that. They ask in these distressful times if, instead of taking up their crews in China, they could not take on British residents in Canada. Is the minister able to undertake any relief in that regard?


Henry Herbert Stevens: These ships employ, in regard to all the engine crews, officers and so on, only Canadians or other British subjects. It is only the portion of the crew comprising deck hands and stokers that is Chinese.
I Mr. Irvine.]


Alan Webster Neill: That is the majority, of course.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is quite a story, and I do not desire to delay the committee by discussing the matter tonight, but if we leave it until the main estimates come up I shall discuss it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Like the hon. member for Comox-Albemi I am also in receipt of many representations on this point. I should like to urge the government to look into this matter carefully, especially in regard to companies receiving subventions from the government of Canada. In that case I think the entire crew should be white.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I say to my hon. friend very frankly that what is asked cannot be done for the money we are giving. The answer is this: It is a case of do it in the way it is being done or not at all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Unemployment relief-further amount required, $975,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Many
hon. members have received representations expressing dissatisfaction, especially in my province of British Columbia, in regard to the scale of rates. May I ask the Minister of Pensions and National Health if a new scale for the winter has been satisfactorily established?
Mr. MadLAREN: The scale on which unemployment relief is granted for pensioners is that the amount of relief to those who are entitled to receive it is not less than the amount that is allowed by the municipality in which the individual resides. The matter is carefully scrutinized, and if an advance is made, especially during the winter, in any municipality, the amount under the department is raised to correspond with that. That is the policy for the winter months.


James Layton Ralston: When does the minister expect to have the report of the committee in regard to pensions headed by Mr. Justice Rinfret?


Mr. MacLAREN:: Not before February. It will be during the remainder of the session.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: May I ask, Mr. Chairman, if under this heading of unemployment relief there can be made any acknow-legment of or reference to the speech of the Minister of Labour recently concluded? His remarks included a very strong indictment of the hon. member for North Battleford with respect to soldier settlement.

Supply-Pensions


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Certainly unemployment relief can be discussed.


William Richard Motherwell: The Minister of
Labour made a very wide and slashing attack against the whole western contingent of Liberal members. He accused us of maligning our country and doing all kinds of things derogatory to our own interest. Mr. Speaker left the chair too quickly or I should have replied at that time, but since you are good enough to permit a reply now, I shall not say anything about the other matter. Two years ago the Prime Minister used to indulge in that sort of accusation, but I think he has got enough in return from this side of the house to feel he should discontinue it. Moreover he has been reformed in that respect and he took advantage of a certain event that occurred in this chamber to say something himself about conditions, not only in the west but throughout Canada. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote some of the Prime Minister's remarks on that occasion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: From what is the hon. member quoting?


William Richard Motherwell: I am quoting from
the report of the Imperial economic conference, the deliberations of which were held in this very chamber, and I should like to mention incidentally that we are not now in the Imperial conference but in the parliament of Canada and we are not to be cowed as the Prime Minister tried to bully the other delegates on that occasion. This is what he said:
Canada, like all other countries, has suffered severely from the calamitous fall in commodity prices. Since August, 1929, our index of wholesale prices has fallen 32 per cent and is now only four per cent above the prewar level. This means that the dollar has increased in purchasing power by 48 per cent. As a result of this rapid and persistent decline in the general price level and the inevitable disparities created between different kinds of prices, normal business relationships have been disrupted, profit margins have disappeared in many cases, enterprise has been discouraged, unemployment has steadily increased, the fiscal problems of all our public bodies have been greatly aggravated, and the burden of fixed charges is exerting an almost intolerable pressure upon some of the strategic elements in our national economy.
The author of that is the present Prime Minister of Canada. He continues:
Moreover, such fixed charges, except as they are reduced by bankruptcy and reorganization, are not being adjusted by the normal corrective processes which falling prices are supposed to set in motion. Indeed it seems that new dis-equilibria are created almost as rapidly as old
maladjustments are corrected and the paralysis of business enterprise with profit margins uncertain or non-existent continues. Trade languishes and unemployment persists or tends to become aggravated.
That is what the Prime Minister said during this conference held in this chamber. Let me continue:
I have said enough to indicate the importance which Canada is bound to place upon the solution of the problems of price instability and of unstable exchanges. In particular we believe that it is imperatively necessary to put a stop to the persistent decline in commodity prices which is paralysing private enterprise, choking off international trade, multiplying unemployment and social distress, and menacing the stability of our present social and economic order.
What hon. gentleman on this side spoke more strongly about conditions in Canada? I want to state that not one-half the truth has been told regarding conditions in the west. We scarcely breathe about the conditions to each other, much less to this chamber, and when any hon. gentleman opposite takes a different stand and pretends to know more about conditions than we do, he is getting beyond his depth and is talking of some thing of which he knows nothing. I have to compliment the Prime Minister on the great reform which has come over him in that respect. We remember quite well when he said that conditions in the west were due to our own extravagance and our speculating in the markets. By the way, he has done a little bit of market speculating himself, but we will come to that on a later item. He has been permanently cured, however. If the Minister of Labour wants to discipline anybody for talking honestly about conditions in the west I think he had better discipline his own leader, because he spoke more plainly with respect to Canadian conditions in this document that he gave to the world than we have ever done here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trade and Commerce-The Canada Grain Act, including management operation, maintenance and equipment of elevators, administration of 

further amount required, $100,009.
William Richard Motherwell: I gave notice, Mr. Chairman, that I wanted some more information about this marketing business. The Prime Minister made a very excellent statement the other day. I do not know whether anybody understood it or whether he himself did, but he left the impression on me that he was doing something for the farmers by way of supporting the market in lieu of paying the bonus on wheat which has been suspended this year. I have looked over the Prime Min-
Supply-Canada Grain Act

ister's statement very carefully since then, and I find that in three or four places he spoke deliberately of steadying the market, or putting some muscle into it, as the saying is, in lieu of paying the bonus this year. Answering a question by the hon. member for West Edmonton, the right hon. leader of the government indicated that this holding up of the market which he spoke of had been done since 1930. So there is no question of its having been done then in lieu of paying the bonus.
I should like a further explanation of that from my right hon. friend or from the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and while they are answering they might also tell us what was done with that wheat when they took it over from the pool by the selling agency which has been under Mr. McFarland's administration for the last two years or more. Was it sold directly as cash wheat, or held and storage paid on it, or converted into long range futures; and was more purchased? Further, why did not the government get out from under this wheat marketing business when they could get out at a profit? I understood the Prime Minister to say that there was a time when a profit could have been made on the pool wheat taken over by Mr. McFarland had the wheat been sold at that time. Unless my right hon. friend has some justification for holding that wheat we shall have to conclude that he was just like any other speculator and did not know when to let go. The government had an inquiry made some time ago, headed by Sir Josiah Stamp, into the wisdom and usefulness or otherwise of the market for futures. The commission evidently concluded that the futures market served some useful purpose. The pool made some mistakes, possibly, while they were handling this wheat. They were accused of gambling in wheat and of holding wheat when they should have sold. Mr. McFarland and the government, we are told by the Prime Minister, could have sold this wheat at a profit at one time. Possibly the right hon. gentleman will say that the government had nothing to do with the selection of Mr. McFarland, that the pools elected him, but he was recommended by the government and the pool only nominally appointed him. Mr. McFarland has now had charge of the selling agency for two years. He took it over with the idea that he was going to show the farmers how to engage in futures profitably. He engaged in trading in futures; it is admitted that he could have made a profit at one time he did not sell, and now he must admit a loss if sale were made

at present. I am ready to listen, and listen very carefully, to an explanation by either the Minister of Trade and Commerce or his leader the Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not come prepared, Mr. Chairman, to discuss this matter tonight. It does not arise out of this item, which is to extend the facilities required by reason of a larger crop being reaped than was anticipated. But I may say this to the hon. gentleman, who is familiar with conditions in western Canada. I said that there was a blackboard loss when Mr. McFarland took over the operations of the pool. I said that there was a day or there were several days on which, if the wheat could have been sold, it could have been sold at a profit, but the difficulty was that it could not be sold. That has always been the difficulty; you had to let the farmer either sell or not sell for himself. As I say, Mr. Chairman, I did not bring any papers with me with which to meet questions of this kind, because I did not think on an item to provide facilities under the Canada Grain Act this matter could possibly be discussed. On mature consideration the hon. gentleman will see that it is hardly fair to expect this matter to be discussed on an item of this character.


William Richard Motherwell: Last year, Mr. Chairman, it was discussed on this very same item relating to the Canada Grain Act, and not only that, but we had the denial that Mr. McFarland was in the business of buying any kind of wheat. It is admitted now, but it was not admitted then.


James J. Donnelly: Last year, I brought
up this very question of trading in wheat futures by Mr. McFarland, and I was told at that time that he was not trading in futures; that all he was handling was the wheat held by the pool, and that outside of that he had no activities whatever and was not hedging or buying futures.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: This discussion is out
of order on this item respecting the administration of "The Canada Grain Act, including management, operation, maintenance and equipment of elevators."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We discussed
the matter on this item before, Mr. Chairman.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Yes, by consent of the house an item was reserved for discussion of all matters pertaining to the department.

Supply-Canada Grain Act


James Malcolm: There is not another
item in the whole estimates under which you could discuss it except the item for the Canada Grain Act, and it was discussed on that item last year.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That is quite right, but that was done by special consent. I remember very well, because I was in the chair at the time, that one item was reserved for a general discussion of all matters pertaining to the department. But if the committee agrees to the discussion continuing, I have no objection.


William Richard Motherwell: The Prime Minister left the impression on me that there was only one prop to the market this year, and that was Mr. McFarland, the representative of the pool and of the government, if you like to put it that way, and that had that prop been taken away the whole business would have come tumbling down like Samson when he got his hair cut. As we are only part of this world and as Winnipeg is only one of many wheat markets, has some great economic Goliath been holding up the markets in the rest of the world that there should be a parity in all markets at this time and that our market should not be out of line with the other markets in Antwerp, Rotterdam, London, Liverpool, Manchester, Chicago and Buenos Aires? Where are these Goliaths? Why should my right hon. friend take all the credit for holding up the world's market at this time particularly when the market fell so badly? That is what he did, Mr. Chairman in his recent statement, and I could quote his words to you, but you would not let me; you never do. But it is in Hansard in black and white. I am not going to say that the Prime Minister deliberately deceived us. I do not think he knows much more about the market than I do, and I do not pretend to be an expert. I am searching for information, and if I have to depend on my right hon. friend I am afraid it will be a case of the blind leading the blind, unless he divulges more than he did on the recent occasion to which I have reference. I am not joking. I want to know if it is true that the wheat market not only in Canada but all over the world was kept either up or down during this period to which we have reference this year by the right hon. leader of the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer to that is
no.


William Richard Motherwell: No to what? This is what the right hon. gentleman said on November 14:
Under . these circumstances, Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited-
That is the company which this government was behind:

to which I have referred, became the only available hedging organization left in western Canada, and the government is faced at the moment with the issue as to whether or not, under these circumstances, it would give its support as provided by the Relief Act passed in 1931 and 1932 as well.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


William Richard Motherwell: There was no other hedging avenue. My information is to the effect that every elevator company, inside of twenty-four hours after they buy in the country, have their grain purchases hedged. It is because the pool had not their grain hedged two years or so ago that they suffered a loss. The rest of them had theirs hedged, and yet my right hon. friend takes the ground that he is the hedger for the whole grain trade. That is what he says.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I have indicated, Mr. Chairman, I am not in a position to discuss this matter because I did not bring a single note with me, being under the impression that this question would not be reconsidered. There will be ample opportunity when the estimates are before the house to discuss the matter fully. I repeat that the only available hedging possible is that provided by the wheat seller, by this organization.


Mr. YOUNG:: They hedge for the trade as well.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They did some for the trade. I said the other day that I was not quite certain. However, I inquired about it, and found that they did some hedging.


Edward James Young: They did all the hedging?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


James J. Donnelly: There was hedging on our Canadian market of Chicago wheat as well. Were they doing the buying of this wheat also?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot answer, because I have not the papers before me.


William Richard Motherwell: I came unprepared
also, because I did not expect the Prime Minister to be present. He seldom is when these questions are under discussion. The Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke last year, because it comes under his department.
Supply-Canada Grain Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: He has not his information before him, either.


William Richard Motherwell: He made quite
different answers last year. I will not press it too hard, because there might have been state reasons for his answering other than exactly correctly. I am ready to forgive that. But when it is admitted by the Prime Minister this year that the government was in the wheat market I think it is high time we knew the facts.


Mr. VALLANCE:: In view of what the
Prime Minister has just said, namely that he has not the information before him, and in view of the fact that we have attempted on many occasions during the last seven weeks to extract from the government their position in connection with the wheat problem, will the Prime Minister give a guarantee to the house that when this matter comes up again for discussion the information will be given?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The word "guarantee" is a highly improper term to use. I will say, however, that so far as the government is concerned it will supply any information it has at its disposal if the house, or the committee of the house, and the opposition, think it is in the public interest to ask it. I will put the full responsibility for it exactly where it belongs.


William Richard Motherwell: Until we do get this information we won't know whether the government has helped or hurt the market this year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Premier of Alberta made that perfectly clear. The other day Mr. Brownlee said what we had done had saved the situation, and I believe he is as well informed in these matters as any other gentleman in western Canada. I presume hon. members opposite saw his public statement in that regard. I know only this, that if we had to do it over again we would do exactly as we did.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, we see statements; there is always someone ready to make them when they are required. Statements are always forthcoming when it is necessary to prop up the government as well as the market.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I may say I had no
knowledge of what Mr. Brownlee was going to say.


Edward James Young: Did the Premier of Alberta have information when he made that statement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is that?


Edward James Young: Did he have information
when he made that statement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have had no communication with him. It was made after the statement made by me in the house the other day.


James J. Donnelly: Last year I brought this matter up, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce told me the government had not taken any action of the kind. Now the Prime Minister tells us that they have been in the market since 1930. I was in this house in 1928, 1929 and 1930. We were told how the pools had been gambling in wheat, and it was because they had gambled that they had made such great losses. Last year and the year before I listened to the Prime Minister tell us that the reason the farmers in western Canada were so hard up was that they had been playing the stock market. Now we find that the big boy is going to show us how he gambled in wheat. It seems we have been in it for two or three years, but we have not had a statement yet. We do not know whether we are behind or whether we are ahead. When I suggest that there might be a profit the Prime Minister says that if there is any profit it goes to the bank.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say any such
thing. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the hon. member retract that statement.


James J. Donnelly: I beg the right hon.
gentleman's pardon; I meant to the selling agency.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Thank you.


James J. Donnelly: The suggestion that
there was a profit was rather outside the question. One day we were told they were ahead of the market, that if they sold out and cleared up they would be ahead. I cannot see for the life of me why it was not done. I have heard the statement that a bear or a bull can make a profit on the market but that a hog cannot. Possibly that is why they have not sold out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am content that the
issue should be left to the Canadian people.


James J. Donnelly: I hope when this
matter comes up on the estimates we will have a full explanation of the activities of the government and a statement as to their position.


William Richard Motherwell: For the next two
months then we are to look upon the Prime

Supply Bill
Minister of Canada as the great economic Tarzan the Terrible who can do all things and hold up all markets not only in Canada but throughout the world.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Office of the Governor General's Secretary, Canada
Ottawa, 25th November, 1932.
Sir.-I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable L. P. Duff, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today at 10.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
James F. Crowdy,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General. The Honourable
The Speaker of the House of Commons Ottawa.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1933, the sum of $1,534,957.08 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Rhodes thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 12 for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1933.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: Mr. Speaker, I desire to move, with the consent of the house, that the following be
members of the committee to consider Bill No. 2, an Act to Readjust the Representation in the House of Commons:
Messrs. Barber, Beaubien, Bell (St. John-Albert), Burns, Dorion, Elliott, Gobeil, Heaps, Ilsley, Kennedy (Peace 11 iver)-, MacNicol, Manion, Mercier (Laurier-Outremont), Reid, Smith (Cumberland), Stanley, Stewart (Broek-ville), Stewart (West Edmonton), Totzke and Turnbull.
And that standing order 65 be suspended in relation thereto.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I asked this morning if it would be possible for members of the committee to be supplied with any data of which it is usually in possession when it begins its work on the redistribution bill.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, I understand the Prime Minister is attending to that, and will see that the proper papers are supplied.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the Deputy of His Excellency of the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate.
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act to amend the Excise Act.
An Act to amend The Canada Grain Act. (Domestic grain.)
An Act to amend The Montreal Harbour Commissioners' Act, 1894.
An Act respecting a certain Trade Agreement between His Majesty's Government in Canada and His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.
An Act respecting a certain Trade Agreement between the Dominion of Canada and the Union of South Africa.
An Act respecting a certain Trade Agreement between the Dominion of Canada and the Irish Free State.
An Act respecting a certain Trade Agreement between Canada and Southern Rhodesia.
An Act to amend the Customs Act.
An Act to amend the Customs Tariff.

Wesley Ashton Gordon: Before we adjourn, Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house I should like to lay upon the table the final report of
Back to the Land Movement

an investigation into an alleged combine in the distribution of fruit and vegetables, 1924-25. In some way this final report was not tabled previously, and the statute contemplates that this should be done.



BACK TO THE LAND MOVEMENT

Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house I should like to table the answer to a question appearing as No. 33 in the votes and proceedings of November 23, 1932. The question was asked by Mr. Bourgeois, and I think the information should be tabled as soon as possible. The question and answer are as follows:


Mr. BOURGEOIS:: 1.	With respect to the return to the land movement, how many persons in the province of Quebec have benefited by the provisions of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act and received assistance from the federal government up to the present time?
2.	How many persons in each of the other provinces of Canada have benefited thereby and been similarly assisted?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	The provincial government of Quebec reports that up to date 148 families with 768 dependents, making a total of 916 individuals, have been settled under the relief settlement plan in accordance with the terms of the agreement entered into between the federal government and the province of Quebec under the provisions of The Relief Act, 1932, and that approximately 375 additional families are expected to be settled this season.
2.	The provincial government of Nova Scotia reports 95 settlers placed on the land with 522 dependents, making a total of 617 individuals to November 1st, 1932. In addition a further 22 applications have been approved by the province.
The provincial government of Ontario reports 226 settlers placed on the land with 932 dependents, making a total of 1,158 individuals to October 5th, 1932.
The provincial government of Manitoba reports 179 settlers placed on the land with 637 dependents, making a total of 816 individuals to November 7th, 1932.
The provincial government of Saskatchewan reports 366 settlers placed on the land with 1,313 dependents, making a total of 1,679 individuals to October 18th, 1932, and that a further 133 additional settlers have been selected for settlement.
The provincial government of Alberta reports that 29 families with 108 dependents making a total of 137 individuals have been approved by the province for settlement.



ADJOURNMENT

Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that this house do now adjourn, and that it stand adjourned until three o'clock in the afternoon of January 30, 1933.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 11.02 p.m.
Monday, January 30, 1933