[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEA-U (Acting Minister of Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 6, to amend the Fish Inspection Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. DURANLEAU:: The act requires that barrels or other containers of such fish as come under its provisions shall be made in accordance with the defined standards, that the fish be cured, graded and packed as prescribed in the regulations, and that the packer
62	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
place marks on the containers to represent correctly the kind, grade and weight of contents. At the present time inspectors are not required to inspect and mark every barrel or container. The purpose of this amendment is to make obligatory the inspection of all fish and containers which come under the provisions of this act and to prohibit their sale or shipment unless inspected and properly marked. This amendment is demanded by different associations.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CITY OF OTTAWA AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to authorize the Minister of Public Works, on behalf of His Majesty, to enter into an agreement with the Corporation of the City of Ottawa to extend the period of the existing agreement with the corporation for one year from 1st July, 1931.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of
the day are proceeded with I desire to make a short statement.
With respect to the statement which I made last evening regarding the reduction in the salaries paid to the members of the public service, I desire to inform the house that some time ago His Excellency the Governor General intimated that, if any reductions were made in the salaries paid to the members of the public service of Canada, he desired, as a voluntary act, to make the same contribution to the treasury as though his salary were included in the reduction, and he also so informed His Majesty the King.
I respectfully took the opposite view, and informed His Excellency that inasmuch as his salary was fixed by section 105 of the British North America Act, I did not think that any contribution of the kind suggested should be 
made. His Excellency now informs me that, notwithstanding the view which I so strongly pressed, he is firmly of the opinion that he should be permitted to share in the sacrifice involved in the reduction of salaries paid to the members of the Canadian public service, and I have agreed with his insistent view. During the new fiscal year His Excellency will voluntarily contribute to the treasury a proportion of his salary', equivalent to any reduction that may be imposed by statute upon the members of the public service of the country.



AUSTRALIAN WHEAT SHIPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I should like, Mr. Speaker, to direct a question to the hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman). According to press despatches, a shipment of some two hundred and fifty tons of Australian wheat to the city of Vancouver for the use of the poultry industry has been refused admittance. Will the minister kindly give the reason for such refusal?


Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue):: This is the first intimation
that I have had of the subject matter upon which the inquiry is made by the hon. gentleman. I understand that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) can give an explanation, and I would ask that he should do so.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the hon. member refers to a cargo of Australian wheat unloaded in Vancouver some few days ago. There is a wheat disease in Australia known as flag smut, and it is against the regulations of this country for any wheat to be admitted from any territory in Australia that is infected with the disease. The only way in which we can protect ourselves is to require that any shipment of wheat from Australia shall be accompanied by a certificate from the Australian authorities that the wheat comes from a district not so infected. No certificate has been produced covering this shipment. The authorities in Vancouver did not want in any way to embarrass the shippers, and we got in touch with the Australian government and asked if they would cable a certificate for the release of the wheat. They had not seen fit to do so. In the meantime the wheat has been unloaded and is being held in quarantine.

Transportation Commission



TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker, I should like to
ask the Prime Minister if the Royal Commission on Railways and Transportation will make its final report during this session? In the speech from the throne it is intimated that the commission is only likely to do so. If such a report is to be submitted can the Prime Minister give the approximate date when it may be expected; and can he also inform the house and country whether the commission will hold any further sittings before taking final action?
Richard Bedford Bennett: It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that I can give no answer to the question. I have no advices as to when the commission will complete its labours, or as to whether or not it desires in the public interest, for the purpose of informing itself, to hold further meetings.



MAFEKING CUT-OFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: Would the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) kindly inform the house whether we may expect shortly the report of the engineers with respect to the Mafeking cut-off?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways) :: Mr. Speaker, frankly I cannot give an answer at the moment. I will look into the question and deal with it to-morrow.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: It has been customary, I think, Mr. Speaker, to have the debate on the address take precedence over any other business. I presume the reason the ordinary motion was not put last week was to enable the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) to make the motion which he did yesterday. But might it not be well now to follow the customary procedure and to have such a motion put, and the debate on the address given precedence over other business?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not intended, Mr. Speaker, to make any such motion. It is proposed to follow the practice in the Imperial house.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. REID:: 1.	For what specific purpose was the national service loan floated?
2.	How much of the national service loan has been earmarked or set aside for unemployment and farm relief and direct relief?
3.	What is the total amount allocated or set aside by the dominion for unemployment and farm relief throughout Canada?
4.	What is the amount allocated, set aside
or	guaranteed	to	the	province	of	British
Columbia for unemployed relief works?
5.	What is the amount allocated, set aside
or	guaranteed	to	the	province	of	British
Columbia for direct relief?
6.	What were the total amounts of provincial projects submitted by the province of British Columbia for the relief of the unemployed and for direct relief?
7.	What was the total amount sanctioned or agreed upon by the dominion for the relief of the unemployed, 50 per cent of which was payable by the dominion and 50 per cent by the province of British Columbia?
7a. What was the total amount of money for municipal projects or undertakings submitted by the province of British Columbia for the relief of the unemployed?
8.	What was the total amount sanctioned or agreed upon by the dominion for municipal projects or undertakings for the relief of the unemployed, as submitted by the province of British Columbia, 50 per cent of which was payable by the dominion, 25 per cent by the province of British Columbia and 25 per cent by the various municipalities?
9.	When were the projects submitted to Ottawa for approval?
10.	When were these projects finally sanctioned and agreed to by the dominion?
11.	What person on behalf of the province of British Columbia submitted the schedule or program of works, both provincial and municipal, in connection with the relief of the unemployed ?
12.	What is the total amount of money that has been given or sent to the province of British Columbia in connection with unemployed relief work and for direct relief?
13.	When were these amounts sent by the Dominion government to the province of British Columbia?
14.	Has the Dominion government earmarked any of the moneys sent to the province of British Columbia for the various municipalities?
15.	What is the total amount of money given or allocated to the province of British Columbia by way of a loan?
16.	Has any money been granted or allocated by the Dominion government to the province of British Columbia by way of a loan to the various municipalities to help finance them in carrying out works for the relief of the unemployed ?
17.	If so, what was the total amount so granted or allocated by the Dominion government for this specific purpose?
Unemployment Relief

18.	What is the total amount of the vouchers for moneys spent by the various municipalities for unemployed relief works that has been submitted by the province of British Columbia up to the present time, giving the names of the municipalities whose vouchers have been submitted with the various amounts?
19.	What was the total amount proposed to be spent for the relief of the unemployed by the city of New Westminster, as at first submitted by the province of British Columbia, under the Unemployed and Farm Relief Act of 1931?
20.	What was the total amount finally sanctioned by the Dominion government to be spent for the relief of the unemployed by the city of New Westminster?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This will stand as a notice of motion for return.



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. VENIOT:: For a copy 'of the report of J. B. Carter, representing the federal Department of Labour, on the investigation made by him into complaints relating to the expenditure of unemployment relief work on roads and bridges in the county of Gloucester, as well as a copy of any evidence on which such report was made.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


Thomas Reid: For a copy of all telegrams, letters, correspondence, and other documents, passing between the Department of Labour, any cabinet minister or any official and the government of British Columbia, and any minister or official of that government, regarding all or any matters affecting or touching upon unemployment, direct relief or unemployment relief in the city of New Westminster and the municipalities of New Westminster, of Burnaby and Richmond.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: With reference to this motion, Mr. Speaker, and to the five notices following it, with respect to the production of documents in connection with unemployment relief, the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act passed last session provides that a complete return shall be made to the house within the time limit set by section 7 of the act. Since the production of the papers requested in these notices of motion will mean quite a burden and a great duplication of work I should like these notices to stand. If, in the interval, there is any particular matter in connection with which hon. members would like to be informed I will be very glad to give them the information required.
[Mr. Reid.l


Thomas Reid: I should be very glad to receive the information in that way if I can obtain it very shortly, because conditions are such as to make this information necessary. Statements have been made by the provincial government and contradicted by the dominion authorities, and for this reason these motions have been placed on the order paper.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I take it that the remarks of the minister apply to the first six notices of motion. He suggests that as, under the statute, the information sought will be brought down within a few days, the resolutions might stand in the meantime, and I understand that the hon. member for New Westminster consents to that arrangement. Therefore this resolution, and the following five notices of motion will stand.
Motion stands.



CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-Ontario) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, all outside appointments should be taken away from the Civil Service Commission and made upon the recommendation of the minister.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Peter McGibbon: I would be very glad to accept the verdict of the house, if it were favourable, and not say anything. This, Mr. Speaker, is a matter which I think should be disposed of rather quickly. It deals with a procedure which is one of the relics of that war hysteria under which we laboured some ten or twelve years ago, and certainly it is one which should be removed from our statute book. Personally I opposed this legislation when it was introduced some ten years ago. I spoke against it then; I have been against it ever since, and I am against it now. It is not that I particularly want to exercise patronage; after all that is a secondary thing. I think it is part of the responsibility of the government, and responsible government is something that cost our ancestors too much to be lightly thrown away.
Let us for a moment study what takes place under this system. Away back in one of the country ridings a vacancy occurs in the outside service. If the remuneration is over $200 the member has nothing to say with regard to the filling of the vacancy; the one elected by the people, who has the most complete

Civil Service Commission
knowledge of conditions, who knows the applicants and their qualifications for the work, is not consulted. Instead, the country is put to the expense of sending some person from Ottawa, over a distance of perhaps three or four hundred miles. This inspector goes out on the street, talks to this or that man inquiring as to the qualifications of the different applicants, and then returns to Ottawa and makes his report. We have no means of knowing whether or not that report is acted upon, but in any case we have a condition where the man who really makes the appointment is responsible to no one.
I think it has been the experience of nearly everyone that the people of this country want their members to be responsible for appointments made in their respective ridings. Possibly it is easier for us to say that we have nothing to do with it, but that it is done by a commission in Ottawa. That is an explanation to which the people do not take very readily, and it does not reflect much credit upon ourselves. Therefore, though we may be making trouble for ourselves, I think we should put this responsibility back where it belongs, on the members elected by the people to look after their affairs.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I should like to ask the hon. member if these sitting members of the bouse have anything to do with the appointments in any case unless they sit on the government side, so what does it matter?


Peter McGibbon: I am trying to restore that privilege to them, if they do not have it now. I hope they will have it in a few days. That is what I am asking for this afternoon.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: In Southeast Grey the defeated candidate arranges all the appointments.


Peter McGibbon: That will be a matter for the people of Southeast Grey to settle at the next election.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: By that time he will not have anything to do with it.


Peter McGibbon: I really do not think
it is necessary, Mr. Speaker, to say very much on this subject. As I have said, I opposed this change when it was introduced ten years ago, so it cannot be said that I am inconsistent in this regard. I spoke against it then; I have under my hand the remarks I made as well as the remarks of other members of the house. I have one expression from an ex-minister of the crown of that time, the late Mr. Crothers, another from the late Dr. Edwards, one from myself, not to mention [DOT]others. But one statement which probably 41761-5
will carry the greatest weight in this house was made a year ago by the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). After having been in power some ten years and having seen the working of the act, he came out flatly last year with the view that the outside service should be taken away from the Civil Service Commission. I commend his judgment to the house. If, however, we want further reasons I think we have been getting them during the last few days in the press, reasons which were strong enough and which should be influential enough to wipe out the Civil Service Commission forever. I should like to see it done away with;
I should like to see the responsibility for the making of appointments placed where it belongs, on the member elected by the people.
I am not so very particular whether that member be a government member or supporter or not, but I think that the man or woman whom the people elect should assume that responsibility, because the elected representative of the people should be held responsible for the character of the appointments made.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: It is not so at all
to-day.


Peter McGibbon: I hope the hon. member will follow me and give us the benefit of her views.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I will.


Peter McGibbon: I do not think there
is any use debating this motion; probably nine out of ten members in this house are in favour of it. The present system was adopted ten years ago when the members were not favourable to a motion of this kind. The action then taken was one of the incidents of a sort of war hysteria. I have much pleasure in moving that all outside appointments be taken away from the Civil Service Commission and made upon the recommendation of the minister.


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: During the recess the government has given consideration to complaints which have been made from time to time with regard to the administration of the civil service. These complaints were voiced in this house during the last session both when the estimates were discussed and also when a certain bill came before the house for consideration. At that time on behalf of the government I asked the house to proceed no further with the bill then under discussion inasmuch as matters of the utmost importance affecting the honour, the efficiency and the good faith of the Civil



The Address-Mr. Gardiner
Service Commission were then before the courts for consideration. I understand that the case which is now pending in the courts at Ottawa will probably be determined within the next few days. In view of that fact, unless members are very anxious to proceed with this discussion to-day, I should prefer to move the adjournment of the debate and in the meantime to suggest on behalf of the government that a committee representing all parties in this house might be appointed to take into consideration this and other resolutions and bills affecting the Civil Service Commission. Such resolutions and bills might be referred to that committee for an independent investigation and report thereon to the house. The matter is perhaps not one with respect to which the government should present a policy to the house. It affects all parties in the house and therefore it might be advantageous if the whole matter were referred to a select committee. In order that this suggestion may be considered by the leaders of the various parties and their associates, I now beg leave to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, February 8, consideration of the speech delivered by His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the session.
Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: Before I begin to discuss the motion before the house may I take the opportunity of congratulating the hon. member for Three Rivers-St. Maurice (Mr. Bourgeois) upon his speech in moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It is sometimes quite an ordeal for old members of this house to debate such an important question and I am sure it must be doubly so for a new member like my hon. friend. However, he discharged his duties quite well indeed, and as I do not understand the French language to any great extent I shall take the first opportunity of reading his address when it is translated into English. May I also congratulate my good friend from Selkirk (Mr. Stitt) who seconded the motion. My good friend gave the house descriptions of many beautiful bits of scenery in his constituency and also informed us of the many excellent qualities of soil and the advantages in the way of location with which that constituency

is favoured. He rightly informed the house that that part of Manitoba was the first section of western Canada to produce No. 1 hard wheat, and he told us that his people had in their midst some splendid butter makers who were so well versed in the art of making butter as to be capable of winning very valuable prizes. When the hon. member was telling us about the capabilities of the butter makers in his constituency he must surely have forgotten the prices which those butter makers now receive for the excellent quality of butter which can win prizes at various fairs throughout the country. Of course, it is a slippery question and I am not going to pursue the subject any further at the present time.
Yesterday we had the privilege of listening to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). These gentlemen engaged in a very wordy debate and it is not my purpose to intervene between them in this pastime. May I, however, make one reference to a statement which came from the leader of the opposition yesterday afternoon? In my opinion this was the most important statement which he made and it merits some attention. In his address he stated that the tariff was the most important question in Canada. I will admit that the tariff is an important question in every country including Canada but I submit that at the present time it is not the most important question in Canada. We have many other problems more important by far than the tariff. In so far as the primary producers are concerned the tariff is always important, but there are other questions which are much more important.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but I think I said that I regarded unemployment to be the most important question, and that the tariff was one of the important factors affecting the present situation.


Robert Gardiner: I accept my right hon. friend's explanation. I was quoting from my notes and I shall be glad to look them up and see whether I am right or wrong.
Let us look at the world and see how important tariffs are. Great Britain until recently has been a free trading country but she has suffered from unemployment just as much as any other country. The United States has had the highest tariff in the world and yet she has suffered from unemployment just as has Great Britain, a free trade country. This shows conclusively that while tariffs may

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
be important they are not fundamentally important, there are other questions much more important which should engage the attention of this house.
As far as the address of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is concerned the only matter to which I shall direct attention is his reference to the ten per cent reduction in the indemnities of members of parliament and in the salaries of the civil service. As a member of this house I have no objection to accepting that reduction; if the government feels that that will help to balance the budget or in any way alleviate the situation with which we are now faced, I, for one, will not protest against the imposing of that reduction. I cannot speak for the civil service, but I desire to take a few minutes to discuss the question oi the reduction of salaries and wages as it affects present day conditions. I am afraid the government is giving a lead to the industries of this country which will have far-reaching effects. We can expect in the near future to have trouble between employers and employees because employers will naturally desire to follow the lead given by the government and reduce wages and salaries all along the line. By the reduction of wages and salaries we are reducing the purchasing power of the Canadian people at a time when it is absolutely essential that that purchasing power should be increased rather than reduced. Perhaps from their point of view the government is justified in stating that this is an economic measure because the economies which will be secured will save this country between *7,500,000 and $8,000,000. I believe that is the estimated reduction in expenditure stated last evening by the Prime Minister. As I have stated already that means that there will be a reduction of that amount in the purchasing power of the people.
What is real economy? There are different opinions in this country as to what it is, therefore, I shall state that in so far as I am concerned I believe that economy properly understood is the orderly arrangement and management of the affairs of the community and the wise and efficient use of its resources. To reduce the power of the people to purchase the goods which they need when those goods can be produced in abundance is not economy, yet the broad reduction of the community's income is the only remedy prescribed by those who are concerned in retaining intact the present economic system. We find the same procedure going on the world over. No doubt this so-called economy has emanated from those who are the real rulers of this 41781-51
country. We sometimes think that this parliament is the institution which in the final analysis controls the destiny of Canada, but with all respect to our parliamentary institutions, with all respect to the views held by the people with regard to those institutions, in my judgment the real controllers of this country are the banking and financial institutions. Inasmuch as they will desire to retain the control which they have held in the past and which they hope to hold in the future, it is only to be expected that governments will follow their advice. Their advice always has been and no doubt always will be that during a period of distress such as we are now passing through we must practise economy or, in other words, reduce the purchasing power of the people to the minimum. I have no more to say at the present time regarding this question, other than to repeat what I said before that, personally, I am making no objection to the reduction proposed by the Prime Minister.
I shall now take up a little time in dealing with the speech from the throne. This afternoon we witnessed a rather important departure from the procedure followed by former governments. I do not say that this government is not justified in following the procedure adopted this afternoon, but since I have been a member of this house it has been usual for the Prime Minister to make a motion that the speech from the throne shall be the first item to be considered and that all other business shall be set aside until that is disposed of. We have this afternoon followed the practice set out in the rules of the house but why are we departing from the usual procedure? Is it because the government feels that the speech from the throne is so unimportant that it is not worth while for this house to set aside time in which to discuss it? I hope that is not the attitude being adopted by the government.
In so far as the first paragraph of the speech is concerned I have nothing to say except that we welcome our new Governor General. We were glad to have him read the speech in the chamber of the Senate and we hope that his stay in Canada will be a pleasant one, that when he leaves these shores at the end of his term of office he will take back many happy remembrances of his association with the Canadian people.
The next paragraph is important but I will pick out only those parts which I believe should receive discussion. The first statement to which I desire to call attention is this:
World conditions are beyond the control of the Canadian people.

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
I admit that world conditions are beyond the control of the Canadian people; as far as the Canadian people are concerned they cannot control world conditions and the same might be said of all other countries. But Canada surely has an opportunity to make a contribution to world conditions and in that contribution I believe the government and parliament can do something that is really worth while. While I admit world conditions are beyond the control of the Canadian people, may I ask the Prime Minister and his government: What are you doing to improve the situation under conditions that are within the control of the Canadian people? That is the point I consider important. Are we doing everything in our power, in so far as it is possible within Canada to do so, to see to it that the condition of our people is improved? A little later on I shall return to that subject if time permits and give some further viewpoints in regard to it.
The next sentence to which I desire to call the attention of the house, reads as follows:
This period of trial has shown the Canadian situation to be fundamentally sound.
That is quite an assertion. I do not know whether whoever was responsible for writing this speech from the throne gave full consideration to the exact meaning of that sentence. I ask hon. members to consider that question and to ask themselves:	Is the
situation in Canada fundamentally sound? If it is, why have we to provide for unemployment relief? Why have we to provide for many of our agriculturists who are facing starvation? How is it that we have in this country starvation in the midst of plenty? If the situation is fundamentally sound, then these conditions should not apply, and therefore whoever was responsible for including that sentence in the speech from the throne, did not give full consideration to the subject matter and its importance. If our situation is fundamentally sound, we should have no hardship in Canada because we have natural resources and the machinery of production in great abundance, all the things that are necessary to provide our people with all the comforts they might expect. Yet at the same time, as I have already stated, we have only to look at the records to find a very substantial portion of our people on the verge of want.
The next sentence about which I wish to say a few words, reads as follows:
The over-subscription of the national service loan manifests both the unity and patriotism of the people, and their supreme confidence in the financial strength of the dominion.

To understand the situation thoroughly, we must give some study' to the financial situation as we find it in this country to-day. If you look at the bank returns which are available and printed in the Canada Gazette, you will find there has never before in our history been more money on savings deposit; you will find also that current accounts are extremely high, showing very conclusively that there are people who, out of their salaries or wages or whatever profits they are making, are saving very large sums of money and are putting it into the banks for safekeeping. I have been unable to find at present any great field of investment where the investor can put his money so that it will be safe and profitable. We have therefore only to recognize that fact and we shall see immediately why the Canadian people have responded so generously to the various loan flotations that have taken place recently. This is simply because there is no other avenue of investment that is safe and will bring them a return. Consequently, when governments float these different loans, those people are in a position to use their savings, if I may be permitted to describe them as such, to invest in the various bond issues. But I wish to emphasize very strongly the extremely high rates of interest which governments are paying for money under present conditions I submit under such circumstances the price of money should be about as low as we have any record of in Canada in the past twenty years. Here we have the Dominion government floating a loan ostensibly for $150,000,000, but turning out to be for over $223,000,000, if I remember the Prime Minister's statement correctly, showing conclusively there are ample savings to take care of all these loans. If that be so, why are we paying 5 per cent for money at the present time? All other commodity prices are down, but because the government commenced to float and did float a loan at the high rate of interest of 5 per cent, it simply means it has put on money a price that is out of all proportion to its actual value.
I have another illustration which forcibly reveals how these financial interests are controlling the country. Some few weeks ago Ontario floated a loan at 6 per cent. This loan was over-subscribed, also for the same reason that I have explained, namely, because of the tremendous volume of savings available. What has happened? I have it on the authority of a man connected with municipal affairs in close proximity to Ottawa, that they had made arrangements to borrow, at 5J per cent, money from the banks for use

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
during the coming season. But the moment Ontario floated the 6 per cent loan, the banks recalled all those loans, called those officials into the banks and told them they would have to pay a higher rate of interest for the money they desired to use, the reason being that other loans had been floated at those high rates of interest. In other words, our governments have been responsible for raising the price of money to such an extent that municipalities are going to be mulcted in the future for every dollar they may use. What applies to a municipality will apply also to industry. During the coming summer we may expect industry to have to pay a high rate for the funds it requires in order to carry on its operations. Under such circumstances, while we all appreciate the fact that the government was able to float this loan and secure ample funds, it is. very much to be regretted the government did not see fit to offer those loans at a much lower rate than that quoted at the time of issue.
The next sentence in the paragraph with which I wish to deal for a moment, reads as follows:
The provisions made at the last session of parliament for unemployment and farm relief are proving effective.
One hardly knows how to approach that subject. I am not very familiar with conditions in the cities where unemployment relief is being given out, but as regards farm relief-and I am speaking only for my district-I must confess that any farm relief which has been given out in the dried-out areas in Alberta, has been totally inadequate to meet the situation. Of that there is no question. Whether it is the intention of the government to follow up this farm relief to a greater extent in the future than they have done in the past, I do not know, but I can say with confidence that in the dried-out areas at least the farm relief has been quite inadequate to meet the situation.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Who is responsible for
the administration?


Robert Gardiner: I am not particularly
questioning the administration of this act; I am merely pointing out the result.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is the hon. member
aware that the amount was fixed by the provincial authorities?


Robert Gardiner: I quite understand that, but inasmuch as the statement is made in the speech from the throne, I am merely pointing out that in my judgment the farm relief is inadequa te and whoever is responsible,
whether the provincial or the federal government or a combination of them, I simply wish to submit that view to them.
The next paragraph I am going to read in full, because it is very important:
You are successfully meeting difficult domestic
Erobiems. Conditions are gradually improving.
lut prosperity in full measure must await the satisfactory adjustment of accounts between debtor and creditor nations of the world and the restoration of international monetary standards, from which the acute financial difficulties have compelled a temporary departure.
It would seem from the speech from the throne we are successfully meeting the conditions that we have in Canada. I am very doubtful about that statement; I doubt whether we are meeting our domestic problems with the best ability that lies within us; my judgment is that we are not. I believe we are at present drifting and drifting very badly, and that a time will come very soon when, unless wTe get away from this manner of drifting, conditions will be more serious than they are now.
The next paragraph states that conditions are gradually improving. I would like tp know, Mr. Speaker, where they are improving. If they are improving I am very glad to hear it, but I would like to have first-hand information so that I can satisfy myself that there is really improvement. So far as I am concerned I have not been able to find any improvement in conditions in western Canada at least, and I refer not only to agricultural conditions but t-o business conditions generally in the west. My hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) asks, why salary reductions if conditions are improving. I will let my hon. friend from Bow River answer his own question.
The paragraph goes on to state that a full measure of prosperity will not return until such time as the nations of the world adjust their accounts between themselves satisfactorily. To some extent I believe that that is true. It is certainly true that the debtor and creditor nations will have to adjust their accounts between themselves satisfactorily before we can expect any great improvement. But why confine it to other nations? Why not deal with the situation that we have here in Canada? Have we no debts in Canada, have we no creditors in Canada? I submit, Mr. Speaker, that to-day we have a greater volume of debt in Canada than we have ever had before, and that applies not only to governments, federal, provincial and municipal, but to individuals as well, and my judgment is that until such time as there is some adjustment of debts both international and more

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
particularly debts within our own country, we are not going to have any very great improvement in conditions. It is indeed impossible to have that improvement until something is done with regard to this debt situation.
The next paragraph in the speech is a very important one so far as agriculture is concerned. It says:
My ministers have under consideration a commercial treaty with the Dominion of New Zealand.
I am sure that hon. members on both sides of the house who represent agricultural constituencies will anxiously await the production of this treaty ito see what its terms may be. I do not envy the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) the position he occupied in trying to negotiate this treaty, bearing in mind particularly the debates that took place in this house on former occasions with regard to the Australian treaty as applied to New Zealand. It is quite true that treaties between nations cannot be made unless there is give and take, and we are wondering just how much Canada has had to give in order to secure this treaty arrangement. We are wondering what class of producers in this country are going to be called upon to give the most. As I said before, the Minister of Trade and Commerce had a very ticklish job on his hands in negotiating this treaty, remembering past debates in this house with regard to the importation of agricultural products from New Zealand, and I am sure that the house will anxiously await the production of the treaty .to see just how far the minister went, rementbering those debates to which I have referred and the statements made by his colleagues on his own side of the house. It would appear to me that the minister is rather more fortunate in negotiating this treaty to-day than he would have (been had he arranged it some years ago. The great question under the Australian treaty as applied to New Zealand was butter, and incidentally I believe that question was quite an influence in the last general election. The minister of Trade and Commerce is in a much better position to-day than the minister would have been in negotiating a treaty with New Zealand at that particular time because Canada is now on an export basis so far as butter is concerned. That would give the minister more leeway in dealing with that commodity and in negotiating the treaty.
Next I wish to make reference to that paragraph in the speech from the throne which says:

A Canadian delegation is participating in the disarmament conference, which was opened at Geneva on the 2nd of February. I join with you in the prayer that the representatives of the nations there assembled may reach an understanding which will put beyond peril the cause of enduring world peace.
I believe that every member of this house will heartily endorse that sentiment. Personally I am not very sanguine of the outcome of the conference, but I am hoping against hope. My judgment is that the peace of the world in the final analysis is inherent in and a part of our economic system, and until such time as we are in a position to eliminate the terrific competition between nations for world markets and other factors that arise out of our present economic conditions, I am afraid that there is little hope for permanent world peace. However, we will hope for the best and our hope in this corner of the house is that this disarmament conference will achieve at least some measure of success and mark some progress.
The balance of the speech from the throne is made up of the program of legislation which the government will bring before the house. As I said before, it is meagre and not very important, and it is hardly worth my while dealing with it, particularly as my time is limited.
The speech from the throne in the final analysis is remarkable for what it leaves out rather than for what it contains. There is not one word in it with regard to unemployment, not one word with regard to the primary producers of this country and the conditions under which they are working, including agriculture. There is not a word with regard to these two very important questions. It may be that the government have plans which they will submit to this house later, but, sir, in view of the tremendous depression that we are passing through and the tremendous hardships that many of our people are suffering we expected that the government would give at least a passing notice to these great and important problems, and therefore I believe that the people of Canada will be tremendously disappointed in this speech from the throne. We do not blame His Excellency for this situation; he merely reads to parliament what his ministers advise him to read. Therefore we must put the responsibility where it belongs, and that is upon the government.
I should like briefly to deal with the condition of agriculture, because in the final analysis I represent a purely agricultural constituency. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that in my judgment agriculture to-day in western

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
Canada is in a far worse condition than it was twelve months ago, that there are far more farmers insolvent and on the brink of bankruptcy than there ever have been in the history of the west. I am speaking of western Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: And eastern Canada
too.


Robert Gardiner: I am only speaking of
western Canada, because, as I have already said, I do not wish to speak for a part of the country that I do not understand and do not know very much about. But it is my firm conviction that so far as western agriculture is concerned, unless some very drastic measures are taken very soon, we shall have the bulk of our farmers in such an insolvent state that even under better conditions they can never hope to recover their title of ownership in their farms. To-day the equity of the farmer in western Canada in his holdings is slipping from him gradually.


An hon. MEMBER:: Gradually?


An hon. MEMBER:: It has gone!


Robert Gardiner: I am trying to put the best light on the situation. I do not want to paint the picture too black, yet I wish to tell the situation as I see it. The equity of the western farmer to-day, I say, is slipping from him gradually-probably more rapidly than gradually. As far as I can see there is no hope for the western farmer except on two conditions:	first of all, he must be relieved of some of the responsibilities and debts which he has incurred and is carrying; secondly, he must be relieved of some of the high interest rates which he is paying to-day. Unless either or both of those conditions are met I am afraid that we are going to find our greatest basic industry beyond hope of recovery even if better times do come.
It has been stated that the condition of agriculture is a national problem. Indeed the Prime Minister last session, referring to a certain section of Canada, said that in that part of the country a national calamity had occurred. So far as I see we cannot confine this calamity with respect to agriculture to any section of Canada; it applies throughout the length and breadth of the country. Consequently, if this is a national calamity national means should be taken to see that the industry is not submerged. That being the case, I can assure the Prime Minister that with regard to unemployment and farm relief we shall be very happy indeed to give him the fullest cooperation and offer him any
suggestions that we think will assist the people over the difficult path they are now treading.
Time will not permit me to go into some matters which I should like to have dealt with. The world has a problem on its hands, and while we can do something to help the international situation, my judgment is that we can do a great deal within Canada to make conditions much better. The problems which we have before us to-day arise out of our economic or social system; they are inherent in the system itself, they grow out of the system. Therefore we must first understand the system before we can successfully deal with the problems arising out of it. Under present conditions we have some striking contrasts. For instance, we have luxury-starvation; we have ease-overwork; we have wealth-poverty; we have abundance -scarcity: all existing under and part of the same system and indeed growing out of it. To explain that system would take more time than I have at my disposal; therefore it would be useless for me to make the attempt. But may I say, Mr. Speaker, before I take my seat, that I am disappointed with the proposals which the government have made before the house. We can only hope that before the session ends the government will bring such proposals before parliament as will at least be effective in controlling some of the problems with which we are now confronted. If this course is contemplated by the government, I hope they will acquaint the house with their proposals as soon as possible, and so give us an opportunity of dealing with them at an early date.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	It is not my purpose, Mr. Speaker,
to speak at any great length in this debate. I share the views expressed by the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Gardiner) on unemployment of labour and agricultural distress, and I will have the opportunity to discuss those problems later during the session.
The first question I heard from members of both sides of the house when I arrived in Ottawa for the session was: What about that famous station? It is my present duty to make a very short and nonpartisan speech, and in connection with that "famous station" I desire in chronological order to thank the whole press gallery and the daily papers of Ottawa, Quebec, Montreal and Toronto, especially Le Soleil, the Globe, the London Advertiser, the Montreal Standard and even the Mail and Empire, for the support they
The Address-Mr. Pouliot

gave me in their editorial pages. Is not the press often called the fourth estate, the lever that uplifts the world?
I asked for no favours, but last session on behalf of my electors I fought for the redress of an injustice and a wrong. On July 21 last year, the case was discussed fully, and to save repetition I would refer hon. members to Hansard of that date. I have no thanks to offer to the government, because no one should be thanked for doing his duty, but I offer my congratulations to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion); who understood at last the justice of my claim. In fact an official of the health department saw to it that twenty-four gallons of muriatic acid were ' used to fumigate the bugs in the old station building. The sanitary system has been renewed, the floor and walls have been tiled and the roof has been re-covered. The exterior repairs are not yet completed. The platform should be renewed and the adjacent buildings be put in order so that the station may be worthy of welcoming you, Mr. Speaker, and all members of the house and the members of the press gallery, when they come to that garden of the lower St. Lawrence-Riviere du Loup. As there is already a Perley Bridge and as the member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) has been instrumental in that matter, and on account of the numerous speeches delivered last session on the subject, would it not be only fitting to give the station the name of Parley station? It is to be regretted that a new station has not been built in accordance with Canadian National plans, because this would have relieved unemployment in my home town.
The discussion about the matter last year did not cost the country so very much, thanks to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart), since several refunds were made. For instance, there was the question of cement. Repairs were to be made to the wharf at Trois-Pistoles, and the cement was supplied by an agent of the Canada Cement Company and another agent of the National Cement Company. When the government changed, the cement was supplied by a prominent Conservative, who sold it to the government at SI.40 a bag. plus transportation. The Minister of Public Works, being notified about the matter, made this man refund the difference between $1.40 and 65 cents a bag as well as the cost of transportation. I also brought charges in this house against a wharf foreman, who took joy rides at the expense of the government and also padded the pay lists. I congratulate the minister on 
having succeeded in getting that money refunded as well. So my speeches in that connection did not cost the country very much, because I had the cost paid by the Tories of my home town.
Other speeches were made about the Riviere du Loup station by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Railways, the hon. member for Argenteuil and others. These did cost the country something; I thought that should be made up in some way, so the Minister of Public Works was told about some dirty work being done by a contractor itf another constituency, who was using timber which was not in accordance with the contract. The minister had the wharf emptied; the stones were taken out and therefore some economy was made, which partly compensated for the speeches made by hon. gentlemen opposite in connection with the Riviere du Loup station.
This shows one thing, Mr. Speaker; one should never say die. If hon. members opposite sometimes are not satisfied with the answers they get from their ministers they have only to follow my example. It may take some little time, but eventually they will receive their reward if their cause is just. The motto I give them is "Never say die."


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as I see the
situation the speech from the throne reveals on the part of the government an absolute bankruptcy of ideas. In the face of a world crisis absolutely no lead is given by the government. The speech states that world conditions are beyond the control of the Canadian people. That may be so, but the question is what we are to do in the face of such a situation, and to that question no answer whatever is given.
The speech states that within the last few months a favourable balance of trade has been established. I think it was only last year that I had the pleasure of complimenting the government on getting away from that old mercantilist fallacy, but they are back again with the old fetish. I would say that the actual situation facing Canada is rightly interpreted by the president of the Royal bank, who says:
While the severe dislocation of international trade has naturally resulted in a substantial decrease in our exports-
He goes on:
-these figures reflect the transition from the period of expansion and development coupled with the investment of foreign capital in Canada to a period of retrenchment and reliance on our own resources.

That simply means that we have a so called favourable balance of trade because we are no longer able to borrow in New York and we are having to pay our debts. That is really the situation, so it is not anything of which we should be very proud.
It is quite true that we have had a very great decrease in imports; I believe that in the last two years they have fallen from some $1,250,000,000 to about $600,000,000 for the calendar year 1931. That is a big decrease, but the Prime Minister has said nothing to us about the corresponding decrease in exports. For the fiscal year 1930 our exports amounted to $1,144,932,070; for the fiscal year 1931 they amounted to $816,938,048, while for the past calendar year they were in the neighbourhood of $600,000,000. That is an enormous decrease in our exports, and I would like this house to consider what that means in the employment of Canadians in this country, because if we are not exporting and the home market is not able to take our goods it simply means that large numbers of our people are left unemployed.
The address goes on to say:
You are successfully meeting difficult domestic problems; conditions are gradually improving.
And the Prime Minister supplemented these words last night by saying:
This government has done much to quicken and improve employment.
Well, Mr. Speaker, in this regard all I can say is that these statements are not so; they are not in accordance with the facts. A number of our provinces are on the verge of bankruptcy; many municipalities are at the limit of their resources, and many of our smaller firms are closing. The Prime Minister sought to bolster up his statement by giving three illustrations. The first was that of a silk firm which employs some 585 more people than it did two years ago; the next was that of a small button industry in Montreal which employs some 30 more people now than it did two years ago, while the third was that of an article the name of which he could not give for certain reasons of state and because there might be international complications.
Those were all the instances he brought forward to show that conditions really were improving. On the other hand I should like to quote the words of the president of the Bank of Montreal as contained in his last annual statement. Sir Charles Gordon said:
Business throughout the Dominion has experienced a general recession more severe than recorded in our last report, and the basic industries of the country have suffered correspondingly.
The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
The basic industries are down even though there may be thirty more people employed in some Montreal button factory. The president of the Royal bank confirms the opinion of the president of the Bank of Montreal; in his annual statement Sir Herbert Holt says:
Manufacturing has been comparatively quiet during the year and most industries have been working on reduced schedules. Activity in the flour milling industry, steel, automobile and agricultural implement trades has been materially curtailed-in both the maritime provinces and British Columbia the fisheries have had a poor year.
And again:
The pulp and paper industry has operated at a lower percentage in relation to capacity than at any time in the past.
The debts of the pr ovinces and municipalities of Canada are in excess of two billions, bringing the total public indebtedness of the country to almost five billions.
Notwithstanding such a situation as is revealed in these statements, Mr. Bennett will claim that there is some button factory in Montreal which is employing thirty more men. Mr. Bennett says that we have improved unemployment in Canada. Again I must say that that statement is absolutely contrary to the facts. I turn to the Labour Gazette of January, 1932, and I read, from the annual review of employment in Canada in 1931:
The curtailment in industrial activity, which first appeared towards the latter part of 1929 and continued through 1930, became more pronounced during the year just past, with the result that employment in Canada was generally at a lower level during 1931 than in any other year since 1926.
That is absolutely contrary to the statements made by Mr. Bennett on the floor of this house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must remind the hon.
member that it is not in order to refer to hon. members by their names. They must be designated by their official positions or the names of their constituencies.


James Shaver Woodsworth: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	[DOT]
Richard Bedford Bennett: That the address be engrossed and transmitted to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of the house as are of the honourable the Privy Council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: That this house will on Wednesday next resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Richard Bedford Bennett: That this house will on Wednesday next resolve itself into a committee to consider the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 5.25 p.m.
so
Criminal Code
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 10, 1932