Mr. J. EARL LAWSON (West York):: I
beg to present the second report, which is a unanimous one, of the select special committee appointed to inquire into the appointments to, and the direction and control of, the civil service of Canada and, generally, the administration and operation of the Civil Service Act, with instructions to inquire into and report concerning the repeal or amendment of any of the provisions of the said act or the substitution therefor or addition thereto of other provisions, as the committee may deem advisable, as follows:
1.	With a view to providing that a transfer may be made of a civil servant from one position to another without necessarily involving an increase in remuneration, your committee recommends that section 13 of the Civil Service Act be amended by striking out the word "either" in the sixth line thereof and the words "transfer or" in the sixth and seventh lines thereof.
2.	In order to have the provisions of the Civil Service Act comply with the practice which has been established, and with a view to obviating unnecessary correspondence passing between the Civil Service Commission and the departments in respect of promotions, your committee recommends that subsections one and two of section 14 of the act be repealed and the following substituted therefor:
2766	COMMONS
Civil Service-Report oj Committee
14. The rate of compensation of an employee who lias not reached the maximum rate of compensation of the class in which he is serving, may, subject to the regulations of the commission, be increased by the deputy head if he is satisfied that the employee has rendered meritorious service and has increased his usefulness in the service. Such increase shall be to the next higher rate for the class. The new rate shall become effectual at the next quarterly date after the said increase is granted by the deputy head, that is to say, either the first day of January, April, July, or October, provided, however, that no employee whose rate of compensation exceeds six hundred dollars per annum shall receive an increase under the provisions of this section more than once in each year.
3.	To correct an obvious error, your committee recommends that subsection two of section 15 of the Civil Service Act be amended by striking out the word "minimum" in the eighth line of the said subsection, and by substituting therefor the word "maximum."
4.	To avoid uncertainty as to the interpretation of the words "bona fide residents" in subsection three of section 21 of the Civil Service Act, your committee recommends that the said section be amended by striking out the words "bona fide residents of such locality" at the end of the said subsection and by substituting therefor the words:
"persons who have resided in such locality for a period of at least one year immediately preceding the date last set for receiving applications for such local positions."
5.	The Department of Justice having ruled that section 24 of the Civil Service Act permits the deputy head of a department to reject an appointee of the Civil Service Commission without reasons stated therefor, and without trial, your committee recommends that the deputy head of a department have power to reject only for cause, and that such cause be specifically stated.
6.	That the provisions of the Civil Service Act as to length of residence in Canada required for eligibility for appointment may accord with the provisions of the Naturalization Act, your committee recommends that subsection one of section 33 of the Civil Service Act be amended by striking out the wrord "three" in the last line of the said subsection and by substituting therefor the word "five."
7.	To enable those who have been in the civil service for less than one year to have limited holidays and to make reasonable provision for holidays for those in the service in tropical countries, your committee recommends that subsection one of section 46 of the Civil Service Act be amended by adding thereto the following words:
"and may grant to each officer, clerk, or other employee who has been less than one year in the service, leave of absence at the rate of one and one-half days for each completed month of continuous service prior to the commencement of the fiscal year; provided that trade commissioners or other officers in tropical countries may be granted a yearly leave of absence for a period not exceeding one calendar month in any one fiscal year, if they have had at least one year in the service."
8.	To permit of suspension of an employee, for the purposes set out in section 51 of the Civil Service Act, by his superior officer at

distances from Ottawa, your committee recommends that section 51 be amended by adding after the words "deputy head," in the second line of the said section, the words: "or any official of the department nominated by him."
9.	Your committee recommends that section 60 of the Civil Service Act, as enacted by Chapter 38 of the Statutes 19-20 George V, be repealed.
10.	In order that vacancies created by retirement may be promptly filled, thus promoting greater efficiency in the civil service, your committee recommends that, when financial conditions in Canada are sufficiently improved, the Civil Service Commission amend the regulations under the Civil Service Act so as to provide for the granting of a gratuity upon retirement equal to the sum now paid out and in lieu of absence with pay.
11.	In order to reduce to a minimum overmanning and over-lapping in the service, and in an endeavour to assure permanency of employment to civil servants, your committee recommends that the Civil Service Commission carefully scrutinize all requests for appointments in an effort to absorb surplus personnel by transfer, or, by any other means in its power, to obviate the necessity of filling vacancies with new personnel and to accomplish by their abolition a reduction of existing positions which are not essential.
12.	To promote economy and efficiency in engineering and mapping services, or in other services which can be centralized, your committee recommends to the Civil Service Commission that a careful study be made of such government services with a view to amalgamations thereof.
13.	It appears from a cursory examination of "The Classification of the Civil Service of Canada" that anomalies therein exist.
Your committee recommends, therefore, to the Civil Service Commission that a more constant and efficient check on classification be made.
14.	Your committee recommends to the Civil Service Commission that ways and means be sought to bring about greater cooperation between the organization branch of the Civil Service Commission and departmental officials with a view to obtaining necessary reorganization and equalized classification.
In the opinion of your committee very little has been accomplished by this branch of the commission "which, if strengthened in personnel, would perform a very necessary and useful function in promoting efficiency and economy
15.	Representations having been made on behalf of female civil servants, your committee is of opinion that there being no discrimination as to sex in the provisions of the Civil Service Act, no amendment thereto in this connection is necessary.
Your committee recommends, however, that the Department of Health, in conjunction with the organization branch of the Civil Service Commission, should make a survey for the purpose of recommending improvements, where necessary, in the sanitation and welfare facilities in government offices.
16.	Your committee recommends that the Civil Service Commission amend its regulations so as to provide that as between those entitled to the disability preference under the act, and other things being equal, a veteran with dependents be given the preference over

Civil Service-Report oj Committee
a veteran without dependents, and likewise a veteran with dependents over a veteran without dependents as between those entitled to the overseas active service preference.
17.	It appears from the evidence adduced before the committee that certain positions on the staff of the House of Commons cannot be satisfactorily filled by open competition.
Your committee recommends that the Civil Service Commission exercise the powers conferred upon it under section 59 of the Civil Service Act, so that such positions on that staff as can best be filled from sessional employees shall be filled by competition limited to such employees.
18.	Your committee is of opinion that there is a great deal of over-lapping in the performance of duties by the heads of different branches of the Civil Service Commission, owing to matters receiving the attention of the secretary of the commission which are in no way related to secretarial duties.
Your committee, therefore, recommends that the secretary of the Civil Service Commission fie called upon to perform only those duties which are peculiarly those of a secretary and that the Civil Service Commission consider ways and means of eliminating duplication of correspondence and departmental memoranda which now pass through the secretary to the commissioners.
19.	Your committee is of opinion that there are unnecessary delays in obtaining appointments and promotions by reason of the cumbersome routine now prevalent in the administration of the act and recommends that the Civil Service Commission exercise the powers now vested in it to simplify such procedure.
Your committee further recommends that all papers, documents, et cetera, placed on the files of the commission be consecutively numbered in each file, so that removals or deletions therefrom will be apparent.
20.	With a view to promoting efficiency in the administration of the provisions of the Civil Service Act and in the direction and [DOT]control of the civil service, your committee recommends that there be added to the committees of this house a select special committee on civil service matters, such committee to consist of seven members.
21.	To facilitate the adjustment of complaints of a civil servant, where such complaints cannot otherwise be adjusted, your committee recommends that such complaints be adjudicated by a board consisting of a nominee of the civil servant organization of which the complainant is a member, a nominee of the deputy head of the department affected, and a nominee [DOT]of the chairman of the Civil Service Commission.
22.	Inasmuch as it is apparent from the evidence adduced before your committee that there are grave anomalies in respect of long term temporary and prevailing rate employees, your committee recommends that the claims of these employees be further investigated by the Civil Service Commission with a view to reporting and submitting the question to the proposed select special committee of the House of Commons on civil service matters.
23.	Representations having been made to your [DOT]committee concerning amendments to the Civil Service Superannuation Act, with respect to the extension of time for election and the return of contributions, and it being doubtful
if the subject is within the scope of the present order of reference, your committee recommends that a committee be appointed at an early date to consider the matter and that, in the meantime, the advisory committee on the Civil Service Superannuation Act should consolidate its recommendations and present a report on the subject to such committee of the house.
24.	Representations were made to your committee on behalf of the Professional Institute of the Civil Service of Canada. It would appear that the subject matter of some of these representations have been considered by the Beatty commission. They are sub judice. Your committee does not, therefore, see fit to make any recommendation relative thereto.
25.	From the evidence adduced and in view of the submissions of officials of the Post Office Department, your committee recommends that order in council P.C. 1053, dated June 29, 1922, as amended by order in council P.C. 17/1751, dated September 12, 1929, be further amended so as to provide for the exemption from the operation of the Civil Service Act of postmasters in revenue post offices where the revenue does not exceed $3,000 per annum.
Your committee further recommends that such amendments be made to the Civil Service Act and/or the regulations thereunder of the Civil Service Commission so that postmasters hereafter appointed to revenue post offices having a revenue in excess of $3,000 per annum shall be within the full operation of the Civil Service Act.
26.	Your committee, being of opinion that the
position of commissioner of the Civil Service Commission of Canada calls for very special qualifications because of the wide powers conferred on such commissioner for the maintenance of the merit system in matters of appointments to and promotions in the Civil Service of Canada, recommends,-	.
I.	That the present chairman of the Civil Service Commission, who has now passed the age of seventy years, be retired; that, because of his long and meritorious years of service in the public service of Canada and as chairman of the Civil Service Commission of Canada, he be granted a gratuity;
II.	That Commissioner J. Emile Tremblay be retired; that, because of his twenty-two years of service in the public service of Canada, hr be granted a gratuity;
III.	That Commissioner Newton MacTavish be retired and, in lieu of notice, be granted a gratuity.
27.	Your committee desires to record that it has been impressed with the ability and integrity of Mr. C. H. Bland, assistant secretary and chief examiner of the Civil Service Commission. He has shown a comprehensive grasp of the principles underlying the merit system and the Civil Service Act and of the details connected with the administration thereof.
28.	Your committee held thirty-nine meetings and heard thirty-three witnesses, including deputy heads of departments, officials of the Civil Service Commission and representatives of civil servants' organizations. A copy of the minutes of proceedings and evidence is tabled herewith.
29.	Your committee recommends that the orders of reference, reports, proceedings and evidence taken, together with a list of the exhibits filed, be printed both as an appendix to the journals of the house and in blue book
276S

Wheat' Bonus-Mr. Gardiner
form, 500 copies of the latter form to be printed in the English language and 200 copies in the French language; and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
J. Earl Lawson,
Chairman.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF

Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) :: Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay on the table of the house orders in council Nos. 1076 and 1077 passed pursuant to the provisions of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932, both referring to the payment of money.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it the orders now laid on the table refer to the approval of payments that were undertaken prior to the expiration of the act. They are not in the nature of orders in council passed since the act expired?
Mr. GORDON; All the orders in council being laid upon the table are pursuant to the provisions of the statute.



SUPPLY-WHEAT BONUS CONTINUATION OF PAYMENT OF FIVE CENTS A BUSHEL ON CHOP 1932-33

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
['I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a message from the Senate that Their Honours do unite with the House of Commons in the approval of the international convention for the supervision of the international trade in arms and ammunition, Geneva, 17th June, 1925, signed on behalf of Canada by the Honourable Raoul Dandurand on the 22nd September, 1925.']
Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, before the house goes into committee of supply I desire to take a few minutes in a discussion of agriculture in western Canada. I realize that hon. members feel the time has come when we should try to clean up the business of the session and get away as soon as possible. It is not my desire therefore to speak at any great length on the matters I have to bring before the house, and I shall make my remarks as brief as possible.
Conditions under which we are operating at the present time are very difficult for all classes of producers, irrespective of whether they are primary or secondary. However there are certain industries in Canada which are of great importance, and they are usually classed as the primary industries, among which agriculture ranks as the most important. In so far as the production of agricultural commodities is concerned, wheat ranks first in importance. In discussing the question of wheat, its relation to the welfare of Canada and its importance in our export trade I desire to remind the house that the bulk of our wheat is produced iD western Canada. Not

only is there a great yield but the product is of an extraordinary quality and appreciated not only in Canada but in the markets of the world.
Those of us who went to western Canada twenty or thirty years ago realize that the prosperity of the west has been built up mainly on one commodity, namely wheat. In fact if we go back to the early part of the century we find that people were induced to come to western Canada primarily to produce wheat, and the immigration literature to be found in countries outside Canada called attention to the great opportunities western Canada afforded for its production. Under those circumstances therefore the west has been opened up and primarily developed on that one commodity. I do not say of course that other agricultural commodities of importance are not produced in western Canada, because*they are. We find our live stock industry is very important, as is also our dairy industry. But I desire this afternoon to confine my remarks to the situation as it affects the wheat growers. Members in this corner of the house, in fact I believe members generally, have been waiting very patiently for some word from the government as to what its policy would be with regard to agriculture. Up to the present time we have had no intimation as to what the government policy might be. I am not unmindful of the fact that governments under present conditions have a tremendous responsibility upon their shoulders, and therefore in discussing these matters of importance we must extend a very large measure of sympathy to the men who to-day are carrying that responsible burden for the Canadian people. However, that does not relieve me of the responsibility, as the representative of a constituency in western Canada, of inquiring of the government what they are going to do with regard to present conditions as they affect agriculture.
Since the last election the government have taken certain steps, mainly by way of increased tariffs, which in their opinion were calculated to relieve some of our industries. Indeed, they went so far as to raise the tariff on agricultural products, but we still find that the prices of these products have been getting lower and lower all the time. Now, we recognize that the real problem facing agriculture to-day is the low price of its products. If we were in a position to secure remunerative prices, then we would probably be able to overcome the situation; but with prices far below the cost of production we must look to the government for some assistance in this extreme condition.

Wheat Bonus-Mr. Gardiner
During recent months since the depression has become very acute the farmers of western Canada have received a good deal of gratuitous advice, and most frequently this takes the form of suggesting that in order to Overcome their difficulties they should go into mixed farming. Those of us who know western Canada well know that there are great sections of country there that cannot be utilized for mixed farming. Take the southern part of the prairie provinces, much of it is not adapted to mixed farming. May I say from my observations that where mixed farming can be fairly well carried on it is in full operation in those districts. Therefore suggestions that our farmers should still further go into mixed farming do not carry very much weight with the person who actually knows the conditions now in existence in western Canada. But even if there were other areas of western Canada where mixed farming could be carried on satisfactorily, permit me to remind the house that the price levels of mixed farming products, such as beef, pork, mutton, eggs, butter and so on, are away below the cost of production. So it is unsound advice to tell the western farmer that if he engaged more in mixed farming he would probably get over the difficulties with which he is now faced.
Now, sir, I have recently received many communications from farmers in western Canada, and only a day or two ago I received some letters intimating that the prices they are receiving for their products are extremely low. For instance, one farmer told me he was receiving about four cents a dozen for his eggs, $2.50 a hundredweight for the best pork that could be produced in western Canada, eight cents a pound butter fat for special cream; and other products were at a similarly low price level. Under these conditions it is absolutely impossible to-day even for the mixed farmer to sell his products and make a profit.
The problem which I wish to deal with more particularly has to do with wheat. As far as western Canada is concerned, I have already intimated to the house that we produce the very best grade of wheat grown anywhere in the world. And we are proud of that fact. Not only is it a question of tillage, but also of climate and soil; with these three combined we are able to produce the very finest quality of wheat. I made some investigation last fall to find out if possible what was the cost of producing a bushel of wheat in Alberta.
I.	received a lot of very valuable information from different sources. This I finally summed up to the effect that last year in Alberta it
cost on an average 76 cents to produce a bushel of wheat. That was based on an average production of twenty bushels per acre. In some cases the cost of production was higher, in some lower, but in dealing with a matter of this description we can only take an average, and 76 cents a bushel is the average as near as I could arrive at it. The price level of wheat at the head of the lakes to-day runs about 59 cents a bushel. It is apparent that when the farmer has delivered his wheat to the head of the lakes and paid the freight, he is still about 17 cents below the cost of production-that is, provided he has No. 1 wheat; if he has a lower grade, then his loss in the cost of production is greater than 17 cents per bushel. Members will readily understand that the western farmer cannot very long continue to produce wheat under these conditions. From my observations last summer and last fall I believe the wheat produced in western Canada was produced at the lowest cost per bushel for many years, because of the fact that the farmers were not in a position to hire labour and consequently they had to do the work themselves with the help of their families. Therefore the actual cost last year was probably about as low as it can possibly be, unless the prices of the commodities which the farmer has to buy come down very materially. The prices of some of these commodities have come down fairly substantially, but as to the great bulk of the commodities he has to buy, whether for the purpose of producing more agricultural products or of taking care of his household needs, the prices have not dropped to anywhere near the same percentage as the prices of agricultural products. Under these circumstances the farmer is in the unhappy position of producing his products at a loss.
Under those circumstances we wish to inquire of the government what they propose to do about it. At the last general election the government asked the people of Canada to make them responsible for the conduct of the affairs of this country, and the people gave them that authority. Therefore the responsibility is upon the government. They may ask us what has been suggested from this corner of the house that might improve the condition of agriculture or general conditions throughout the country. I think any hon. gentleman who has attended this house regularly this session will know that we in this corner have suggested more than one important measure which might be of great benefit not only to agriculture but to all the Canadian people as well, but it is not my purpose this afternoon to take time to review the suggestions we have made.
Wheat Bonus-Mr. Gardiner

A year ago the present government, recognizing the importance of wheat to Canada not only as an internal factor in economy but also as a factor in our export trade, were good enough to place a bonus of five cents a bushel on the production of wheat. That helped a great deal so far as the wheat producers were concerned. It gave them some hope and some assurance that at least the Canadian parliament was taking cognizance of the troubles with which they were faced. Financially it helped immeasurably; of that there is no question, though there were large sections of western Canada that did not receive any benefit from that provision because of drought conditions. When the Prime Minister introduced this bonus legislation last year he stated that other measures would be taken to provide for the areas where there were no crops. When I addressed this house at the beginning of this session I stated that I was well satisfied that the measures taken to look after the drought areas, so far as Alberta was concerned, were not adequate to meet the conditions prevailing. I do not blame anyone for that fact; I do not say any government is to blame for that situation, but nevertheless that condition still exists at the present time.
In introducing this bonus legislation last year the Prime Minister said there were four reasons why this bonus was necessary. The first reason was the low price of wheat. Today the price of wheat is still below the cost of production. It is true that the price has risen a few cents a bushel in the past year, but notwithstanding that increase the price is not yet sufficient to pay the cost of production. Therefore, in relation to that first reason, the price is still too low. Another reason given by the Prime Minister at that time was that the price received did not bear the same relation to the cost of production that it had borne previously. That simply meant that the price received for wheat last year did not pay the cost of production, as it had previously, altogether apart from leaving the farmer any margin of profit. That condition still exists to-day; probably it has been alleviated to the extent of three or four cents a bushel, but that is about the only difference. The third reason given by the Prime Minister was that this bonus was a measure of necessary relief for the farmers of western Canada. I submit, sir, that under present conditions that necessity is just as apparent to-day as it was a year ago, and the argument put forth by the Prime Minister last year is just as potent to-day. I have ventured to bring this question to the attention of the government this afternoon in this way, and I hope they will (Mr. Gardiner.]
be able to give the matter some consideration. As I have already said, our western farmers cannot continue to produce wheat at a loss; of that there is no question. Then, if I remember correctly, the fourth reason given by the Prime Minister last year was a psychological reason, and I think that was just as important as any of the other reasons given at that time. If the morale of the western farmer should be absolutely broken down I am afraid it would take more than a five cent bonus to restore it. However, those were the four reasons given by the Prime Minister at that time.
I am not going to take very much more of the time of the house on this question; I desire to make only one other statement, which I think is of importance. As one who has studied the economic problems with which we are faced to-day, I do not consider that bonuses will ever cure any economic ill. Of that there is no question. But bonuses sometimes become necessary because of the economic problems with which we are faced, merely as a temporary means of bridging a gap for the time being. I am under no illusion at all with regard to bonuses being factors in the final solution of these problems. It is not my purpose this afternoon to discuss what I think would be a proper solution of these difficulties; we have before us a problem which must be met in the near future, so I suggest to the government that they give very serious consideration to the possibility of renewing the five cent bonus on wheat which we had last year, as a temporary relief measure to assist the wheat producers in western Canada.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Has my hon. friend given any consideration to the advisability of extending that bonus to include the producers of butter, potatoes, eggs and other commodities, who are also producing at a loss?


Robert Gardiner: I have given a great
deal of consideration to that question, and the only reason I did not include those other commodities in my remarks this afternoon is that we have not the great surpluses of those commodities that we have of wheat. At the present those commodities to which my hon. friend referred do not bulk so largely in our export business as does wheat, which is our most important export commodity and which is a big factor in helping this country balance its internal and external business. It is not that I do not realize the importance of these other commodities to Canadian farmers, but wheat is the greatest export commodity we

Wheat Bonus-Mr. Campbell
have, and that is why I have devoted my attention to it rather than to the broader question of all agricultural products. I may say candidly that so far as I am concerned, if it could be arranged I see no reason why these other agricultural products should not be given the same consideration that is being asked for wheat. But I say that wheat, being the most important commodity which we produce agriculturally, the most important commodity which we export, is in a rather different position from our other agricultural products.
I am not going to take up the time of the house any longer, but I move, seconded by Mr. Campbell, an amendment to the motion in the following words:
That all the words after the word "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house the government should seriously consider continuing the five cent bonus on wheat as a measure of relief for the crop year 1932-33."


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: In
seconding the motion moved by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), I have no desire to take up the time of the house at considerable length. The case has been very well put by the hon. gentleman and it needs no amplification by me. I merely wish to put myself on record as supporting it.
The only reason, I presume, for the bonus last year, was the necessity of the grain grower of western Canada, and if that necessity was great then, I say it is even greater this year, because there is no question that the grain crop was produced at a considerable loss last year, resulting in accumulated taxes, interest and debts, so that even the farmer who had a crop is in a worse condition to-day than he was a year ago.
May I put on record a few figures which will indicate, better than, perhaps, I can, the position of the grain grower of western Canada. I wish to quote from the Economic Annalist, a publication issued by the Minister of Agriculture. It shows that the prices of field products are to-day only about twenty-five per cent of what they were in 1920. As shown by this bulletin, the index in 1920 of field crops, which would include grain, was 168-5, whereas in February, 1932, it had dropped to 43-7, just about 25 per cent of what it was at that time. The retail prices show an index of 124-2 in 1920, while in February, 1932, it was 84-6, or a drop of about 40 per cent. That will give some idea of what the grain grower has to contend with.
With respect to the question put by the former Minister of Justice, I quite appreciate the fact that farmers of all classes, farmers growing various farm products, are in a very
unenviable position to-day; but I do submit that of all the various classes engaged in agriculture, the wheat grower has been hit harder than any, and I think these figures will again prove that contention. Coming back to the Economic Annalist, the figures show that for all farm products the index in 1920 was 161-6, and in February, 1932, 52-1; so that the drop in field products is very much greater than in all farm products taken together. I think the figures would show an even greater disparity if grain were considered separately from other field products. I contend, therefore, that the grain grower is in a different position from the others; he is in a more unenviable position than any other class of farmers in Canada to-day.
The farmers in my district, and for the most part in all the northern section of the prairie provinces, enjoyed a fairly good crop last year, but that did not solve their problems by any means. The average farmer in that part of the country sold his wheat at the elevator at a net price over the cost of threshing of from 22 to 28 cents per bushel. Now anyone knows that a price of from 22 to 28 cents per bushel will not pay the farmer for producing grain, so that it means that it was done at a very considerable loss, and the accumulated taxes, interest charges and so forth leave the farmer in a very much worse position to-day than he was in even a year ago.
Under the conditions that prevailed last year, the five cent bonus was nothing less than a godsend, and I say without fear of contradiction that it was appreciated by the great mass of the farmers who received it. The government, I believe, was somewhat discouraged by the expression of opinion that came from various parts of western Canada with respect to this bonus. I have expressed my opinion on that before in this house, and I may do so again. Agitations were started in different parts of the prairie provinces, asking for a different method of application, and in some cases there was a direct attack on the very principle of the bonus; but I do say that with respect to the great majority of the farmers there was no question whatsoever about their appreciation. I can assure the government that notwithstanding all that was said, the bonus was acceptable and welcome to the rank and file of the farmers of western Canada. Speaking for my own constituency of Mackenzie, I feel I can say that the satisfaction was universal, and this applies not only to the men on the soil growing the grain but to business men, professional men and all other classes in the community. I hope and trust, therefore, that the administration will see fit to continue that bonus for the coming year.

Wheat Bonus-Mr. Myers


Mr. J. H. MYERS (Queens):: I can assure 3'ou, Mr. Speaker, that it is the furthest thing from my thoughts or from my desire to prolong this debate or to prolong the session, which I consider should by now be pretty well over; but I feel I should be remiss in my duty to the farmers of eastern Canada, at least to the farmers of Prince Edward Island whom I have the honour to represent in this house, if I were to allow this amendment to pass unnoticed.
I have the greatest sympathy on earth for the wheat farmers of western Canada, and that remark, I believe, applies with equal force to those of us who are farmers and who represent the farmers not only in eastern but in central Canada as well. I think I am safe in saying that we have been wonderfully patient with and wonderfully kind to our western brothers in the difficulties which they have laid before this parliament during the last two sessions, in so forcible a manner. We certainly sympathize with them and we are willing at all times to extend to them the helping hand. But when it comes to singling out wheat growing or wheat growers in any one part of Canada more than another, I feel it my duty to draw the line at that. I wonder how the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) expects me to get along when I return to my constituency and after they read in Hansard and in the newspapers the stirring appeal that he has made to the house on behalf of his wheat growers in western Canada. What will they say to me? What will the man down there say who is selling the very best grade of potatoes that can be found anywhere at eight cents a bushel, while thousands and thousands of bushels of them will foe carted out into the fields this spring, finding no market whatever? Let me draw to the attention of my hon. friend this fact: Wheat is a commodity that you can keep over for a number of months; potatoes automatically market themselves. Within the next two or three weeks they will be off the market; they will be rotting and will be carted out to the fields for manure. The hon, member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) said that you must separate wheat from any other farm commodity; he thinks he has a right to do that. In doing that, you must separate the wheat grower from the grower of any other commodity and that I consider is most Unfair and unjust.
Wth reference to the bonus system, my opinion is it is the most dangerous practice in which any government could ever engage. Wheat, they say, is very important to the wheat growers, largely so because they have a 
great quantity of it and it adds greatly to the wealth of the dominion. We admit all that; but the production of potatoes, or fruit, or hogs, or beef, or eggs, or butter, or cheese is just as important to those who are engaged in those industries as the growing of wheat is 1o the wheat farmers of western Canada. If you begin to extend this bonus system to wheat, why not extend it to every other commodity which the farmers are engaged in producing? But that is not the worst feature of the situation. We cannot stop there. While I am a farmer, I am quite free to admit that, there are in the dominion other people engaged in other important occupations who have just as much right to consideration as have the farmers.


Miss MACPHAIL:: They have all been
well looked after. They have had their bonus.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not in the hon. member's riding.


John Howard Myers: The hon. member for Southeast Grey says they have all been looked after. Let me say that satement appears to. me to be due to her lack of knowledge.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: The hon. member will
learn as he remains here longer.


John Howard Myers: Let me take my hon. friend -I am sure it would be a pleasure for me to do so-down to the shores of the maritime provinces where we have the best class of citizens to be found on earth, engaged in the very hardest occupation at which man can work, that of the fishing industry. What are we going to do for the fishermen who are selling the best codfish that can be found anywhere in the world for half a cent a, pound landed on the stages? If that is prosperity; if that is fairplay for the fishermen of eastern Canada, I should like the hon. member for Southeast Grey to say so. What about the coal miners? Why not give them a bonus? Why not extend it to the whole population of Canada? What about the lumbermen? Wherever there is lumber, you will find men who have not been in the bush this winter. Why? Because the lumber they got out last year is still in their yards unsold. They cannot sell it at any price. If we are-going to extend this bonus system to the wheat farmers of western Canada, why not extend it as well to the lumbermen all over Canada?
But if you want to help agriculture, this will never be done by a bonus; I think the hon. member for Acadia admits that himself. That is not the right way to tackle the problem. In my opinion the present Minister-

Wheat Bonus-Mr. Myers
of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) is attempting, as far as he is humanly able, to approach this problem from the right end. So far, my observation of the Department of Agriculture has been that 99 per cent of its effort has been directed along the line of teaching you and me how to grow more potatoes, more wheat to the acre, how to raise more hogs, how to make the hens lay more eggs, how to produce more beef and everything along that line.


Mr. YOUNG:: A very good line too.


John Howard Myers: That is not the most
important line. Just show me how I can get some money out of anything I produce and I will look after the production. To my mind the efforts of the Department of Agriculture should at this time be directed rather along the line of securing wider and greater markets for the commodities of the farm. This our Minister of Agriculture has been attempting to do, and what he has done for the beef raiser of Canada during the last eighteen months has not passed without notice and has not been without great benefit to that industry. If we give him a little time, a little opportunity, his efforts along that line will be greatly extended to the benefit of agriculture.
I do not wish to prolong this debate, but I have in my hand some extracts from western newspapers. I find that the hon. member for Acadia, in connection with this very matter which he is at present advocating in the house, has within a very few months suffered a change of heart. I hold in my hand an extract from the Edmonton Bulletin of January 20, 1932, according to which I understand a meeting of the United Farmers of western Canada was held in that city. I want to read this and have it placed on Hansard so that my farmers in eastern Canada may know I am not remiss in my duties as their representative; that I am endeavouring on the one hand to look after their interests and on the other to keep the hon. member for Acadia in check. The extract reads:
With Robert Gardiner, M.P. for Acadia, and president of the United Farmers of Alberta taking a definite stand against the extension of a bonus to farm production, the annual U.F.A. convention meeting in the First Presbyterian church on Tuesday afternoon-
That will sound very peculiar to my Presbyterians in eastern Canada, remembering that at one time their great Master made a scourge of knotted cords and expelled from the temple everyone except those who were there for a certain purpose. My Presbyterian constituents will after a while begin to wonder
that the hon. member has any wheat on which to ask for a bonus. The extract continues:
-threw the whole question of a bonus and production into the melting pot and discussed the question from almost every conceivable angle.
In the course of the discussion the delegates found themselves in some embarrassing situations. "To be or not to be" was the question. They were faced with the necessity of abrogating one of the accepted principles of the U.F.A. movement if they approved of the bonus, and yet they realized that in these troublous times, the bonus might be a way out.
In the first instance the convention found itself approving of a resolution favouring the bonus. Then on a motion to reopen the discussion on the resolution was rejected, following Mr. Gardiner's address.
The original resolution, No. 83 on the list, was submitted by the Grande Prairie, D.A., and read as follows:
"Whereas we appreciate the bonus on wheat by the Dominion government, being a step in the right direction, and
"Whereas there is no bonus for other agricultural products '
"Therefore be it resolved that we demand that the Dominion government bonus agricultural production and that the amount of the bonus be in proportion to the benefits enjoyed by the manufacturers through the tariff."
That would be pretty hard to figure out, I imagine. I continue to quote:
After further discussion, centering round another resolution, a motion was moved to refer to this (previous resolution No. 83) for further consideration, and in speaking against adoption of the resolution in the reopened discussion Mr. Gardiner said:
"When we come to a matter such as this, tariffs and bonuses can never be equitable in any well-organized system. I recognize that these are unusual times and conditions are unusual and that the people are living under a heavy load, but in my final judgment a bonus such as this is small relief, let alone adequate relief. It is only too true that we have people benefiting from special privilege, but remember, special privilege is always at the expense of someone else. If the farmers get a special bonus, who would pay for it if not largely the farmers themselves. As the greatest producers of wealth they would have to bear the largest share of the resulting taxation. If we pass this resolution a greater burden will come back on our own shoulders and will stultify development."
Donald F. Kennedy, U.F.A. member of parliament for Peace River, was present and stated that it was not correct to say that we did not ask for a bonus or something like it." Continuing he said that several U.F.A. members asked for help for farmers during the exceptional happenings of 1931. The five cent bonus was the government's idea. He did, however, contend that financial assistance had been sought. If all bonuses were opposed then the same arguments must be advanced against the bonusing of coal and other products. In conclusion he said "I don't see why we shouldn't accept a bonus on wheat, even if we have to pay part of it ourselves in taxation."
Wheat Bonus-Miss Macphail

Riee Sheppard agreed with another speaker that the farmers would do well to refuse the bonus and, if need be, tighten up their belts a little more and keep on smiling.
That is the chap I would like to have heard, Mr. Speaker. I should like now to quote from a Canadian Press despatch to the Manitoba Free Press. It says:
Alberta farmers want no bonus on farm products. They stick to the free trade principles and they are prepared to "draw their belts tighter" rather than ask the Dominion government for assistance comparable to what they believe the manufacturers receive from the tariff. So they decided at their annual convention Tuesday afternoon.
It was not a unanimous decision, however, for first of all the convention passed a resolution asking that the present bonus of five cents a bushel on wheat be extended to agricultural production generally and in proportion to the benefits enjoyed by manufacturers through the tariff.
There is a sudden about-face decision. On a word from one of their representatives in the federal parliament, E. J. Garland, member for Bow River, supported by the views of the leader of the United Farmer group and president of the association, Robert Gardiner, member for Acadia, they recalled the bonus resolution and threw it out by an overwhelming vote.
Another resolution along the same lines gave Mr. Garland a chance to get his word in. He merely opposed the resolution and said that he was sorry the former one had passed. The new resolution was defeated, and then a demand arose for reconsideration of the former one. At this point Mr. Maeklin asked for the opinion of Robert Gardiner in that he would have the responsibility of advocating the policy adopted in the House of Commons.
And this is what our friend the member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) said:
"My view is that bonuses and tariffs can never be equitable," said Mr. Gardiner. "A bonus of this description would be no relief to agriculture." Those who produced the real wealth of the country were the ones who would have to pay, he said, and the farmers would have to pay for the bonus themselves.
The report continues:
The debate lasted two hours and at times was heated, but the change in sentiment was complete. When the final vote was taken the bonus resolution had few supporters and a demand arose for the elimination of the request for extension of the present wheat bonus to an acreage basis. The hour of adjournment prevented debate on this and it will likely arise again.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say this, and just one word will do me. It is true that agriculture in Canada, as in every other country, is in very bad shape now. We are sorry for that, but as Mr. Rice Sheppard whom I have just quoted said, we have simply got to tighten our belts and look pleasant. That is the only way I see at the present

time. But remember, we are having a very' important meeting in Ottawa this coming summer, the Imperial economic conference. It is the duty of this government to look after the interests of the Canadian farmer, the primary producer, for I believe, and with good reason, that the Canadian farmer is still the backbone of prosperity in the Dominion of Canada, and always has been and always will be, and in times past he has stood for a great deal, and I do hope that whoever is charged with bringing before the Imperial economic conference the needs and w'ants of agriculture in this dominion will have that work wrell prepared beforehand and well mapped out, and with the economic union between the different parts of the British Empire which I hope will take place as a result of that conference, I trust that there are better days ahead of the Canadian farmer.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I think that this request for a
bonus on wheat on behalf of the wheat farmers shows us just how ridiculous has the whole position of bonusing become. We have in Canada neglected those industries which are the cornerstones of our national structure. The primary industries of agriculture, lumbering, fishing and mining have never been given the consideration of governments as have the secondary industries which are built upon the prosperity of the four primary industries that I have named. Now to-day we have the cornerstone of the whole national structure, agriculture, asking for a bonus on her products, a bonus which in the last analysis can only be paid by agriculture. I have since I came to this house thought that the petting and pampering and spoon-feeding that we have given secondary industries was as unsound as anything could be, and this request coming from this comer of the house but proves this. AVe have loaded upon the primary industries of agriculture and mining and fishing and lumbering a weight that they cannot bear, of taxes, of increased prices of the goods they buy, of blocking our exports by refusing imports. Instead of allowing our secondary industries to grow naturally, and they would have grown naturally, we have attempted the forced growth of secondary industries in this country, and every member of this house from the Prime Minister down to the most lowly knows that. Everyone knows that this country, a pioneer country that has to do with primary things, has ceased to take any care of the primary industries and devotes its whole time to granting special privileges

Wheat Bonus-Mr. Luchkovich
to secondary industries. So we have tariffs, excise duties, special privileges to financial groups and extremely high salaries paid to executives of all secondary industries until the load has become more than can be borne. Every drop of Scotch blood in my veins resents it. We have farmers now going to the government, which should be their creature, asking for a bonus of five cents a bushel on wheat and-and being nice and polite about it. I would rather do without the five cents.


An hon. MEMBER:: It would depend on how badly you needed it.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: No, it would not depend on how badly I needed it. I will tell the government how they could give a bonus on wheat. Let them depreciate Canadian currency to the level of the pound sterling, or even lower, and let us have a bonus on all exports. Cut out high tariffs, or export duties, allow import of things we need instead of building artificial industries. Let imports come in freely and our exports will go out freely. Do we suppose we can continue shutting out imports from all over the world, and then that we can sell these great quantities of exports of ours? We now admit we cannot do it, so we are going to pay for them ourselves. We are going to let the other fellow eat them, however, to get them out of the road.
So I say, and I say earnestly-knowing however that it will be no use and I might as well not say it-that the business of finance in Canada is at the root of our trouble. We will not solve our problem by a five cent bonus on wheat. I said earlier in the session that I wondered how a man who produced beef was going to pay a bonus on wool, or a bonus on this or that. I notice however that the sheep grower will not receive a bonus on his wool. In the New Zealand treaty there was no tariff for him.
Let us consider the community that does not grow wheat for export, that does not grow only one commodity but grows all farm commodities. By a five cent bonus we would simply be loading five cents more on the shoulders of the mixed communities-that is all. Five cents a bushel on wheat-nonsense. I will admit western Canada has taken too much guff from the east. I know and almost everybody else will admit that the government of this country have served secondary industries, and that practically means the eastern financial and industrial groups. The wheat farmer has suffered by it. That is true. The wheat farmer of western Canada has depended on wheat. He sold his product on the
world's markets. He is an exporter, so all that tariffs can do for him is to increase the cost of everything he uses. Now the farmers come asking for five cents a bushel on wheat. Instead they ought to rise in their wrath and form a government which would begin to look after the primary industries of Canada. Until we do that we will just go on with this business of passing the buck,-five cents a bushel on wheat,-from one to the other until the fellow on the ground floor pays the whole thing.


Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to reply to some of the remarks made by an hon. member opposite (Mr. Myers). He said he was unalterably opposed to the principle of bonus, and although not in exactly the same words the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) has said she is opposed to the bonus because in her view it would not solve the present agricultural problem.
I rise particularly however to discuss a situation which has arisen in the west because of many farmers having been hailed out. In and contiguous to my constituency there are two strips of land ten miles wide and one hundred miles long. One is in the south and the other is in the north. Those people have been hailed out. Last year this government passed a bill respecting wheat, and providing a bonus of five cents per bushel to all farmers producing this commodity. I think hon. members opposite will agree wth me that this legislation was not applied equitably and justly to the farmers in the west. Some of those farmers had good crops yielding about forty bushels to the acre, for which they received five cents per bushel. Whether it was exported or sold in Canada they received the bonus. On the other hand however the man who was hailed out did not get a nickle, and I speak to-day on behalf of those men because I do not think they received a square deal. I do not care what all the lawyers in this house may say with respect to the bonus. Some may say it is nothing but a bonus to industry. I say however that the legislation passed last year was passed or purported to be passed in order to relieve the farmers. The fact is that it did relieve those farmers who had plenty of grain, but it certainly did not help the men who through no fault of their own, but through what the lawyers would term an act of God, had not a single bushel of grain. For the life of me I cannot see why a man who was hailed out should not receive the benefit of this five cent payment. Last February I asked a question of an hon. member opposite-I think it was the hon.
COMMON?
Wheat Bonus-Mr. Smith (Victoria)
member for Regina (Mr. Turn-bull)-as to what he thought about the five cent legislation. His reply -was that it was not a relief measure, but was a five cent bonus given to an industry. I certainly believe it is a relief measure, and it could not have been anything else. It was passed last year because the wheat grower was in dire straits. The legislation was for his relief, and at least to that extent was a measure of relief. My reasoning is that if it was passed as a relief measure I can see no reason why the hailed out farmers should not receive help just the same as those who were more fortunate. I believe there has been a great injustice and the act has not been applied justly and equitably. Certainly something could be done for hailed-out farmers. For the information of hon. members I should like to read a resolution passed with respect to the hailed out areas in my district.
Whereas, all the hailed-out farmers are in the poorest financial position of any other Canadian farmer; and
Whereas, we will ultimately have to pay to the dominion treasury our share of the bonus now paid per bushel of wheat; and
Whereas, the bonus does not relieve the farmer who was hailed out and went to nearly as much expense in growing a crop; and
Whereas, this bonus had incurred and added burden on such farmers in that they have to pay five cents extra for all feed and seed; and
Whereas, the purchasing power of said farmers has been reduced to worse than nothing by reason of said disaster; therefore be it
Resolved, that the federal government make arrangements to pay a bonus of one dollar per acre on the hailed-out acreage of wheat and that such acreage be determined from the 1931 census returns.
No doubt there are some hon. members who on principle are opposed to the bonus. I do not however see how they can argue against my statement with respect to hailed out farmers. Certainly I see no reason why, after the bill was passed and became law, it should not have been equitably and justly applied to all farmers concerned whether they had a crop or were hailed out.


Mr. B. F. SMITH (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to offer one or two suggestions concerning the amendment before the house. I do not think hon. members can accuse me of having taken very much time in the discussions of this session, so far as bringing up matters pertaining to my own constituency is concerned. I do desire to inform the house however that the constituency I have the honour to represent for a distance of one hundred and twenty-five miles runs along the international boundary line. We are in close proximity to Aroostook county in the state of Maine. For many years that

county has grown potatoes almost exclusively, and it is in close proximity to the markets of Boston, New York, Providence and other places. Those cities offer a very ready market for their products, and the result was that because of prices obtained the farmers had. grown comparatively rich. The farmers in. my constituency are following the example of their American neighbours, with the result that last year they grew practically nothing but potatoes. The farmer in my constituency during the present season has not received on an average more than enough to pay him for picking the potatoes up off the ground. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) said that the wheat producer of western. Canada had been hit harder than the producer of any other agricultural product in this country. The hon. gentleman was totally incorrect because the wheat producer of western. Canada is receiving at least more than half the cost of his production, while the potato grower of my constituency is not receiving one-tenth of the cost of production.
Once before during this session I have drawn, attention to the fact that the Hawley-Smoot tariff which -was enacted a few years ago had made it absolutely impossible for the farmers of the maritime provinces to find a market in the United States for their products. A 3^ear ago the Cuban market was closed to us by a high tariff wall. As I have already said. Mr. Speaker, the loyalty of no part of Canada has been tested more severely than has the loyalty of the farmers of the maritime provinces. Yet we have not complained so bitterly. While I have been a member of this house I have heard wailings come from every section of Canada as to conditions that pertain there. It is all very well to bring these conditions to the attention of the house, and let me repeat, we sympathize most deeply with the farmers not only of western Canada, but of central Canada and all other parts of the dominion, because we in the maritime provinces realize that it is absolutely impossible for one portion of this country to flourish without every other portion feeling the effects directly or indirectly. When our boys went overseas in 1914 it made no difference whether they came from British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario or Quebec, or down from the maritime provinces, they went into the trenches together and their blood mingled freely. Let me say that we in this house ought to try and emulate their example of sacrifice and patriotism, we too should stand together for all portions of Canada, realizing that one portion of the body politic cannot-be separated from the others.

Wheat Bonus-Mr. Donnelly
I am absolutely opposed to the principle of a bonus on wheat or anything else. I do not believe that this parliament ought to bonus any commodity. In my opinion the member for Acadia killed his own argument when he gave the present surplus of wheat in western Canada as a reason why we should still further bonus its production. In my judgment the bonusing of any article is bound to stimulate greater production, and if we have already a great surplus of wheat for which we cannot find a market, then I do contend it is only right that we should not further bonus it, but that every effort should be directed towards opening up new markets and extending our present markets so that the farmers of this country may be able to sell their products. We in the maritime provinces have no market to-day for our farm products. As I pointed out a moment ago, the United States market has been closed to us, as well as the Cuban market. Last year when we had a great surplus production of potatoes we found even a British embargo against us, which absolutely excluded that product from Great Britain. I hope that during the coming Imperial economic conference the government will spare no effort to place very strongly before the representatives of Great Britain the necessity of lifting that embargo and allowing our potatoes to enter the British market in competition with those from foreign countries. It is only fair that this should be one of the questions on the agenda, and it is a matter that should be taken up before the opening of the economic conference, so that at least some ray of sunshine may be given to the maritime provinces, in the hope that we may secure some opening for the products which our farmers have been taught to raise, and have marketed so successfully in years past, but which because of tariff barriers can no longer be exported. I desire to impress this as solemnly as possible upon the members of the government. As was suggested by the junior member for Queens (Mr. Myers) if anything can be done by the present Minister of Agriculture to open up wider markets it should be lone, and I am sure not a single member on either side of the house will say a word against such a policy. We know that agriculture being the basic industry of this country it ought to be stimulated, and the only way in which it can be stimulated is to open up markets which will be attractive, and enable our farmers to sell their products where they will get satisfactory returns.


Mr. T. F. DONNELLY (Willow Bunch):: I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, at this late hour of the session to trespass at any great length on the time of the house. I rise, however, to add a word or two to this discussion on wheat, which is all-important to the people in my constituency and throughout western Canada. We all admit that agriculture is one of the most important basic industries in the dominion to-day. The prosperity of Canada depends on the agriculturist; if he is prosperous all others are prosperous, and when he is having hard times all others are having hard times.
At the present time our agriculturists from one end of Canada to the other are suffering severely. Farm commodity prices are down low; there is no doubt about that. What we need more than anything else is a price for our commodities. During the last election we were promised that if the Conservative party came into power we were going to get better prices, they were going to "blast" a market for our products, and we were even told that wheat would fetch SI .50 a bushel within a week of the Conservatives getting into power. Well, instead of wheat going up to $1.50 a bushel it has been going down ever since. They told us the same thing about butter, and eggs, and beef; in fact all the commodities our farmers produced were going to go up in price. But what has happened? They have gone down, down in price until now they are below the cost of production.
Last session we asked the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture to tell us the policy of the government with respect to agriculture, but we received no reply. Last session in the agriculture committee we discussed farm problems of one kind and another, and the committee brought in a report, but they never asked for concurrence in it. It was simply all eye-wash, all window-dressing; there was nothing substantial in it, nothing of any benefit to the farmer at all.
Until our farmers get a price for their commodities this country will never get back to prosperity. The only way we can get a price for our commodities is by being able to sell them abroad. We cannot sell them abroad if we do not buy. If we do not buy we cannot sell. That is a motto that should be hung up in every household. The Minister of Trade and Commerce the other day said that the principle is all right in theory but hard to practise. I know it is hard to practise for this government. They said they were going to sell to everybody and buy from nobody. They are still doing it and shutting up all our



Wheat Bonus-Mr. Donnelly
markets; in fact we are going from bad to worse. But if you look at it you will find that our balance of trade keeps about the same; we sell only about as much as we buy. Instead of obtaining a favourable balance of trade by increasing the commodities we sell, we have secured a favourable balance by cutting off everything we buy and selling just what we can. Conditions are going from bad to worse, and they will not get better until we are able to sell our products in the markets of the world.
This question came up last year, when the Prime Minister said he recognized the serious condition of the wheat growers in western Canada. He stated that this measure was brought in as a compensating adjustment for the western farmers, to make up for the duties they had to pay; that was why this bonus of five cents a bushel was given on wheat. This year we have higher duties than ever before, but we are not to be given a bonus or any other help. We bonus the manufacturer by giving him high protection. I do not believe in a bonus of any kind; I do not believe that any industry, any manufacturing concern or any farmer should be bonused; I do not believe in the principle, but if it is the practice of the Conservative party to bonus manufacturers why should not the farmers be bonused in the same way? If you are going to do it in one case surely it is right to do it in the other. As the Prime Minister said, we need this compensating adjustment in western Canada because of the duties we have to pay. Let me repeat, however, that what we need is a market for our products, and in order to obtain that market we should be going to other countries and making trade treaties with them. We should have trade treaties with Germany, France, Italy and other countries in order to sell our products, and unless this is done in my opinion we will not come back to prosperity for some time.
In that regard I would say to the Prime Minister and those who will represent us at the Imperial conference that we must be careful, in seeking to obtain agreements for the purchase of a certain amount of our wheat each year, that we do not antagonize the rest of the world. We must remember that we produce some three hundred or four hundred million bushels of wheat for market each year, and we can only sell about one hundred million bushels within the British Empire. The rest of the wheat must be sold in the markets of the world, and if we antagonize other countries by making trade agreements with England and the other parts of the empire our western farmers will be worse off

than they are to-day. So, as I say, we must be careful in making these trade agreements at the Imperial conference not to do anything that may antagonize the rest of the world and so harm our wheat growers.
I should like to say a word or two with regard to the working out of this bonus last year. I come from a section of the country that was dried out and had no wheat for sale, and consequently we received no bonus. We found that this arrangement was most unfair and inequitable. We were glad to see those people in the north get the five cent bonus and we were only sorry they did not get more; we did not envy them, but we were sorry we did not get something as well. It was most unfair and unjust as it worked out. We had to pay more for our flour and our seed because of the bonus which was given the wheat growers in northern Saskatchewan, and even those people in the north who did receive the bonus were not able to make wheat growing pay. They had crops of twenty-five and fifty bushels to the acre, but in spite of that it was necessary for the relief commission and the government to spend from $300,000 to $400,000 for relief work in that part of the country. What must be the condition in the southern part of the province, where we did not have a crop and did not receive any bonus? We say that if a bonus is to be given wheat growers it should be on an equitable basis whereby all who sow wheat would receive the bonus according to their acreage. If there is to be a bonus at all, whether a man sows wheat, barley or oats he should receive that bonus regardless of the result. If he is hailed out he should be entitled to the bonus; if he is dried out, eaten out by cutworms, hailed out or frozen out, he should get the same consideration. If there is to be a bonus let it apply equitably. As I said before, I do not believe in a bonus, but we have a government which believes in bonusing manufacturers; let it also bonus the farmers, who need help just as much as anyone needs it, and let that help be given on an acreage basis.
I do not intend to take up more of the time of the house, Mr. Speaker. I desire to move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie) that the amendment be amended by inserting the words "or a bonus based on the seeded acreage" after the word "wheat" and before the word "as" in the said amendment.
Amendment to the amendment lost on division.
Amendment lost on division.

Supply-Imperial Economic Conference
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.



[Stage Direction]
To provide for expenses in connection with the Imperial Economic Conference, $250,000.
Mr. BENNETT:: May I say, Mr. Chairman, that this item is intended to assist in defraying the expenses incident to the holding of the economic conference in this city this summer. It has been the custom of the British government to defray the expenses, in their entirety, of all the delegates to previous conferences. I believe that the right hon. leader of the opposition, as well as myself, took the view that it would be better if each country paid its own expenses, but the British government was of the opinion that it should extend the hospitality, and it has done so. They, and as well those who come from other parts of the empire, are now to be our guests, and this item, which I believe will have to be supplemented by an additional provision in the supplementary estimates, is intended to meet these expenditures.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to corroborate what the Prime Minister has said in regard to the attitude which the British government has taken towards the expenses of delegates to previous Imperial conferences. At the last conference attended by ministers of the previous administration, which was in 1926, as the Prime Minister has said, the delegates from Canada did suggest to the British government that we should be allowed to pay our own expenses, and I believe that this would be the best method to follow with respect to all conferences in the future. The government of Great Britain, however, urged at the time that they had made arrangements for entertaining the delegates, and asked that they should be permitted to extend that hospitality. It is proper in every way that a like courtesy should be extended by Canada to the delegates who may be visiting our country at this time, and the government will, I have no doubt, meet with approval of its action in so arranging. But I would still suggest that the matter might be brought up again as regards future conferences; I think it would be better in every way that delegates from the different countries of the empire at these gatherings should enjoy the greater independence which comes with meeting their own expenses. That would be preferable if it can, be arranged for the future.
May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement either of a general or of a particular nature which he would care to make 41761-1751
to the House of Commons and through the house to the country, with respect to the approaching Imperial economic conference, before we have any discussion on any phase of the conference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know that I can usefully add much to what I have already said during the present session. This is the first Imperial conference that will have been held in this dominion, or in any dominion. A conference was held in Ottawa in 1894 whieh was largely engaged with the consideration of the Pacific cable, and while it was intended to discuss trade relations, the attitude taken by the United Kingdom with respect to preferential trade agreements prevented anything being accomplished. This, however, is to be a conference dealing wholly with economic matters; it does not deal with either political or constitutional issues, and it is meeting at a time of unparalleled world conditions.
I need not dwell upon the seriousness of the situation from any angle from which it may be considered. It is believed that a quarter of the world's population inhabiting one-fourth of its area, meeting through its representatives in the capital city of Ottawa, may be able to devise policies and plans that will be advantageous to every part of that population; and if they are advantageous to that population they will be of very, very great assistance to the world in its effort for economic recovery.
The two or three large questions that might be considered at the conference would be, of course, trade, communications and currencies, as has been already said. With respect to the question of currency, that has been discussed in this house very fully on more than one occasion during the present session. With respect to trade, so many observations have been made and so much advice has been given by hon. gentlemen opposite that there should be no difficulty in the government framing, in the light of that advice, a policy that would be entirely acceptable to nobody but hon. gentlemen themselves.


Ernest Lapointe: What is the policy of the government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The policy of the government is to conduct its business in the best manner that is possible-


Ernest Lapointe: Everybody does that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -in the discharge of the duties that will devolve upon it in connection
2780	COMMONS
Supply-Imperial Economic Conference
with the conference; and if my hon. friend will take the trouble to read Hansard of days gone by-


Ernest Lapointe: I did.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -he will find that governments cannot declare what, for instance, an agenda is to be until after all the countries' representatives have been consulted. And they have not all declared what their intentions or purposes in that regard may be. I have, however, indicated broadly what matters will be considered, and if my right hon. friend thinks that I propose to depart from the well-established pratice in that regard and indicate something that will enable him to make brilliant addresses such as, for instance, he made in this capital city of Ottawa a few nights ago, he is entirely mistaken. I have no intention to do any such thing. But I will say this, that up to the moment we have been given an intimation of those who will attend from some of the dominions. I took the trouble to have the names written down so that I might be able to present them to the house if the house were interested at the moment. We have not been given the names of the delegates from either New Zealand or the Irish Free State. We have, however, the names of those who will attend from Great Britain, Australia, South Africa, India and Rhodesia. The delegates from the United Kingdom are:
The Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin, M.P., Lord President of the Council.
The Right Hon. J. H. Thomas, M.P., Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.
The Right Hon. Neville Chamberlain, M.P., Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Right Hon. Lord Hailsham, K.C., Secretary of State for War.
The Right Hon. Walter Runciman, M.P., President of the Board of Trade.
The Right Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, K.B.E., M.P., Secretary of State for the Colonies.
The attendance of some of the members of the United Kingdom delegation is contingent on developments from the Lausanne conference and other international engagements. From Australia the delegates are:
The Right Hon. Stanley Bruce, Assistant Treasurer.
The Hon. H. S. Gullett, Minister of Trade and Customs.
The delegates who will attend from South Africa are:
The Hon. N. C. Havenga, Minister of Finance.
The Hon. P. G. W. Grobler, Minister of Lands.
The Hon. A. P. J. Fourie, Minister of Mines and Industries.

The government of India have designated the following delegates:	-
Sir Atul Chandra Chatterjee, K.C.S.I., K.C.I.E.
R. K. Shanmukham Chetty.
Sir Padamji Pestonji Ginwala, Kt.
Sir George Rainy, K.C.S.I., K.C.I.E.
Haji Abdullah Haroon Sahibzada.
Abdus Samad Khan, C.I.E.
From Southern Rhodesia, which has the status of a self-governing community, the delegates taking part in the discussions will be:
The Hon. H. E. Moffat, C.M.G., M.L.A., Premier.
The Hon. P. D. L Fynn, C.M.G., M.L.A., Treasurer.
The Hon. J. W. Downey (Adviser), and four
others.
The four others comprise advisers and staff. As I say, we have not been informed definitely as to who will attend from other communities.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They have all
accepted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said some time ago that they had all accepted, and I communicated the last acceptance in the telegram which I read to the house from the government of the Irish Free State.


Ernest Lapointe: Have the Canadian delegates been appointed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Canadian delegates will be selected as from time to time may become advisable or necessary, as is the practice in England.


Ernest Lapointe: In England they appoint some of the leading ministers and then call others to help if necessary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It depends upon what business is under consideration. At the Imperial conferences where only Prime Ministers have been accustomed to attend, and which have not been economic conferences, a committee is presided over by the Prime Minister and other committees are presided over sometimes not by ministers at all; but various ministers are in attendance when particular business is being transacted and discussed. For instance, the President of the Board of Trade, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of the Admiralty, the Minister for War, all have attended from time to time, depending upon the subject matter under consideration. This however being, as I have said, a conference at which neither political nor constitutional matters will be considered

Supply-Imperial Economic Conference
or discussed, the government will expect that the first minister will be in attendance, and as occasion necessitates his colleagues will be changed from time to time, depending upon the matters that are being considered. This, we believe, is the correct practice in that regard.
The question of organization, as I have said, is in the hands of those who are designated by the government for that purpose. Broadly and finally, in addition to the matters that have to be considered, the government will have committees dealing with questions of administration and hospitality as distinguished from those which are responsible for the preparation of material in connection with purely economic problems. I indicated some time ago that these matters were, under the direction of the government, being considered as carefully as it is possible for men to study every phase of the situation that must arise as the discussions proceed.
I have no intention of giving any indication as to what the government will do when the time comes or how it will conduct its business. I shall be grateful for any suggestions that may be made by those who feel they are in a position to offer them and I am deeply sensible of and grateful for the assistance that has been rendered by one hon. member who is not in his seat to-day. I refer to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) who made a speech two days ago in Hamilton. If that was indicative of the desire of the Liberal party to assist in this important matter, I am grateful that such assistance has been forthcoming in the manner in which it has. The advice that has been so tenderly and solicitously offered by that hon. gentleman and others in a similar way, some of them not quite in the same class as regards mental equipment, will be gratefully received; it will be studiously and carefully sifted and if there is in it the genesis of an idea that will be helpful to the country, it will of course be adopted. That is all I think I can usefully say with respect to the matter, for I have no intention of indulging in an}' general discussion of it at this time.


Ernest Lapointe: Without entering into a
general discussion, I vTould ask my right hon. friend if he would go so far as to tell us whether he has in any way modified his views as expressed at the conference of 1930, or whether his proposals to the other nations of the commonwealth are still along the lines suggested-1 am using a moderate word-or intimated to them at that conference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I made many observations at that conference. The hon. gentleman's remarks are very general. If he will particularize I shall endeavour to oblige him for the general benefit of the committee.


Ernest Lapointe: If my right hon. friend
asks me to particularize, I shall do so in a limited way. At that conference he used the following words, and this is the specific proposal:
I offer to the mother country, and to all the other parts of empire, a preference in the Canadian market in exchange for a like preference in theirs, based upon the addition of a ten per centum increase in prevailing general tariffs, or upon tariffs yet to he created.
I should like to know whether this is still the view of my right hon. friend as to the proposal to be made to the other parts of the commonwealth.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I assume the hon. gentleman did me the credit of reading the whole of the observations-


Ernest Lapointe: I did.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -and if he did he will
have observed that I said that by way of illustration and for the purpose of enabling a discussion to take place. He will find that clearly stated; the present Viscount Snowden asked a further question with respect to that and made it abundantly apparent in observations which he subsequently made.


Ernest Lapointe: So that ten per cent is
not a hard and fixed percentage?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; it is not intended to be such. It was a basis for discussion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just in order
that the chronology of these historic events may be accurately recorded, my right hon. friend in opening his remarks this afternoon said that this was the first Imperial conference that had been held in Canada. I assume he meant the first Imperial economic conference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mentioned this afternoon that there was a colonial conference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend knows the first conference held in Canada was held many years ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was a colonial conference held in 1894; it was not imperial at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Colonial conferences came later to be known, as Imperial conferences. This -is the first imperial economic conference to be held in this Dominion. In speaking some days ago on the
2782	COMMONS
Supply-Imperial Economic Conference
budget, my right hon. friend conveyed the impression that this conference had no connection with that of 1930; that it was not the postponed conference agreed to at the time. By his words as reported in Hansard, I think he rather left the impression that this conference was something which was due wholly to himself, and one that had been arranged for the first time as a result, in part, of the recent elections in Great Britain. In case I may be doing my right hon. friend an injustice in misstating his position, I should like to read exactly what he said. The words will be found in Hansard, page 2406 of April 26 of this year. My right hon. friend, referring to the Imperial economic conference to be held here this year made this statement:
It is said by him-[DOT]
That was of myself.
-to be regarded as the adjournment of the former conference. I believe it is not so regarded; at least I am so informed. It may be that the conference of 1930 was a failure. The right hon. gentleman said it has been described by someone as a tragedy.
The point I wish to bring out at the present
moment is that the statement I have just read would certainly lead us to believe that this conference was not the postponed conference of 1930.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Neither it is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend says "neither it is." I confess I am at a loss to understand his view, and I do not know what members of delegations from other parts of the empire will feel when they see that statement, because my right hon. rriend was very emphatic at the Imperial conference of 1930 in stating that he would like the economic conference to be postponed, to meet in Ottawa later on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is true.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Again may I
read his exact words. In his opening address which appears under the heading "Statement by the Prime Minister of Canada," the Prime Minister put forward proposals which, as he has since told us, he thought would be rejected. He said he put them forward deliberately expecting that they would be rejected. That will come rather as a surprise to members of that conference. My right hon. friend went on to suggest the basis upon which a conference might be held, and he concluded with these words: I am reading from the report of the Imperial Conference of 1930, English edition, page 34:

Consistent with the fullest inquiry into the application pf the principle of an empire preference, our deliberations must be governed by the time factor. If this change in our economic relationship is to be made, it must be made without undue delay. I would therefore, propose that this conference, if it approve the principle should constitute such committee as may, with the greatest expedition and thoroughness, consider the various questions incident to its operation. As we have here neither the time, nor the machinery necessary, to reach a final conclusion upon all of them, it is apparent that we must employ the technicians of our respective countries to complete the inquiry. And for that purpose I would suggest that committees be set up in each of the countries concerned; and that these committees commence immediately an exhaustive examination of the effect upon their domestic situation of the proposals I have made.
Then, under the subheading "Suggested conference at Ottawa," the report continues:
I am satisfied that whatever modifications in the general plan Canada may have to suggest wall be ready for submission within a period of six months. I assume that you are all capable of a like measure of expedition, and so I further propose that, when this economic conference has had an opportunity profitably to discuss the plan in its various aspects, it do adjourn to meet at Ottawa early next year, as the guests of the Canadian people, and that in the interval, through the instrumentalities I have suggested, full and final reports be prepared for submission to it.
In his concluding speech on November 14, as reported at page 225 my right hon. friend spoke as follows:
I would therefore move the adjournment of the economic section of this conference to Ottawa to meet upon a date within the next twelve months to be agreed upon, and I wish, on behalf of the Canadian people, to assure you of their most hearty welcome.
And concluding he said:
I therefore move, Mr. Chairman, that the economic section of the conference adjourn to Ottawqa to meet within the next twelve months at a date to be mutually agreed upon.
I have always understood, and I am sure that all the delegates who were present at the Imperial conference understood, that that was the resolution that was adopted and the plan that was intended.
May I recall to my right hon. friend's mind the fact that we were told last year that unfortunately the postponed conference which was then to have met, had to be again postponed because of the inability of certain other parts of the empire to be represented, but it was always the postponed conference to which reference was made, and certainly until my right hon. friend made the statement two days ago, to which I have just drawn attention, everyone, in all parts of the empire, had the impression that the conference

Supply-Imperial Economic Conference
now about to be held was the postponed economic conference of 1930. I am a little at a loss to understand why my right hon. friend should not so regard it unless it is that another remark which he made in the course of his address helps to throw light upon it.
My right hon. friend told us that he himself had been the first to suggest an economic conference, that he had done so in 1928, that it had been the ambition of his life to see that such a conference was held if he ever came into power. I do not want to take away from my right hon. friend any honour to which he may be entitled, but I would remind him that there was an Imperial economic conference held in 'Great Britain in 1923 as well as an Imperial conference, and that the Imperial economic conference was attended by representatives of the government of Canada as well of the other dominions. The late Sir Lomer Gouin and the Right Hon. George P. Graham were two of Canada's representatives at the Imperial economic conference held in 1923. That was I believe the first Imperial economic conference. It is true that in speaking on the address in 1929 my right hon. friend did say that he thought we should have an economic conference in Canada, but in the course of his remarks what he stressed was not what he has been mentioning to us this afternoon as all-important for the purposes of the conference, the questions of currency and trade. He spoke then more particularly of development and settlement. That was the object of the conference my right hon. friend had in his mind. I have his remarks in that connection here. Speaking on February 11, 1929, the present Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, said as reported at page 28 of Hansard of that date:
There are two great problems that confront the people of the British Empire; they are the largest problems that have ever been offered for the solution of men and women in any age.
Then he goes on to speak of the size of the British Empire, and so forth, and after having noted its resources and their extent he continued:
So I suggest to the government that since England can no longer take the lead with respect to this matter, this country should call a great economic conference to meet in Ottawa. Let the Dominion of Canada take the lead; let us call an economic conference of the British Empire to meet in this city to consider, after being properly informed, the two great problems of settlement and development.
That was the conference my right hon. friend had in mind, that was the ambition of his life at that time, and yet to-day he does not mention at all the words "settlement
and development" in stating to the house the subjects that are to ibe those of first consideration at this conference. So clearly this conference cannot have any relation to the conference that my right hon. friend had in mind in 1929 if we are to judge by the remarks that he then made. My right hon. friend went on to say:
I can only say that if we who sit to the left of the Speaker were entrusted with the responsibilities of power to-morrow one of our first actions would be to ask that representatives of this great empire meet in this capital city of Ottawa in a great economic conference to grapple and deal with the problems of settlement and development, for one-fourth of the world's people are not trustees for nothing. Where England may not take the lead, as she may not at the moment in a matter of this kind for reasons which are obvious, we may point the way, remembering that the first of the colonial conferences, which ultimately became imperial conferences, sat in this city.
A great economic conference brought together through the initiative of the Canadian government would be able to work out a solution of these problems which would not be temporary in its character, which would not be subject to adverse and hostile legislation, but which would represent the agreed views of one-fourth of the world's pdople, occupying one-fourth of the world's area. That in itself would do much to secure for all time that outlawry of war, that perpetual peace, for which all democracies are striving.
That was the kind of conference my right hon. friend had in mind in 1929, and I think we still have vivid recollections of the elaborate scheme of settlement which was proposed by the present Senator McRae, at that time a member of this house, and which seemed at the time to bear a very close relationship to what my right hon. friend had in view when he was speaking of an economic conference.


Ernest Lapointe: It synchronized.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, as my
colleague suggests, it seemed to synchronize with the statement of my right hon. friend's views. I hope that the Prime Minister will tell us whether this important question of settlement, which means, of course, migration from different parts of the empire to other parts, is to be one of the main subjects of consideration at the coming conference, and what the policy of the government of Canada will be with respect thereto; also, perhaps my right hon. friend will tell us what is meant by development in connection with the policy that he suggested in 1929. I might add that the Liberal administration of the day did extend in 1929, invitations to Great Britain and other self-governing parts of the empire for an economic conference to be held in
2784	COMMONS
Supply-Imperial Economic Conference
Canada, if possible, during 1930. My right hon. friend said that we took the idea from him. Frankly I do not wish to say that we were not as indebted to him as he might be to us for an exchange of views now and then, but the kind of economic conference that we had in view was one which related to trade more particularly than to anything else, and it had not as one of its specific subjects for consideration the question of settlement, which was one of the two main questions in my right hon. friend's mind at the time he spoke in 1929. I might say to my right hon. friend that if he -will speak with those who were at the Imperial conference in Great Britain in 1926, he will discover that the point of view which, as representing Canada, I myself, put forward with respect to conferences was that Imperial conferences dealing with political questions might be held from time to time in London, although I doubted the wisdom of too great frequency of conferences of that kind, and that subsidiary conferences dealing with economic questions might with advantage be held from time to time in different parts of the empire. For instance, that there might be a conference on communications within the empire, held, say, in Australia one year; that a conference with respect to some other economic phase might meet in another part of the empire; that a conference, for example, for increasing the facilities and opportunities for trade within the empire might be made the subject of a separate conference, and that was the conference we suggested in 1929 should be held in Ottawa, trade being considered by us the most important question. The elections came on in the summer of 1930. I think the economic conference was postponed, or rather fixed for London, in view of the decision of the British government after conference with other parts of the empire to hold an economic conference, as well as an Imperial political conference-if I may so describe it-simultaneously in London some time during the year 1930. Speaking on the budget in May, 1930, my right hon. friend made further reference to the conference to which he had previously referred. At page 1827, after quoting his remarks of the previous year, Hansard contains the following statement:
I then concluded with the suggestion that representatives of this great empire should meet in Ottawa and deal with the problems of settlement and development, because one-fourth of the world's people are not trustees for nothing. I repeat that it is desirable and necessary that there should be a conference of representatives from every part of this empire, 
and that conference cannot be held successfully in Great Britain. That is the position which I would expect to be taken by a government having the interests of the empire at heart. But this government is following its old policy; there never has been a time when the Liberal party was not prepared to gamble with Canada and with the British Empire.
I think that makes quite clear my contention as to the nature of the conference my right hon. friend had in mind. There is a paragraph preceding the one I have read which might be read to reinforce my statement:
Well, I have in my hand a return brought down the other day, and I observe that the Prime Minister of our country

Referring to me-
-sent an invitation for an economic conference in Canada sometime after I had on the speech from the throne suggested that there were two great problems with which the British Empire was concerned, the one fiscal and the other the migration of peoples, and that the only method by which these matters could be satisfactorily dealt with was by having a great economic conference here in Ottawa.
It is just as well to have the record complete. The fact is that the first Imperial economic conference was held in London in 1923, and was attended by representatives from Canada and other parts of the empire. In 1929 my right hon. friend suggested an economic conference to be held in Ottawa to deal primarily with questions of settlement and development. In the same year, after my right hon. friend's speech-but not because of it, but rather in accordance with a suggestion which had been made at the conference in Great Britain in 1926-the Liberal government of the day did extend an invitation to other parts of the empire for an economic conference to be held at Ottawa in the following year to deal with trade questions. After that invitation had been sent, my right hon. friend repeated his desire for a conference which among other things would deal primarily with the fiscal question and that of migration. In the fall of 1930 the Imperial conference of 1930 was held in London, and so far as the economic side of it was concerned was a tragedy or a farce. It was postponed on the suggestion of the present Prime Minister for a period of about six months. When that time had expired it had again to be postponed to this year because other parts of the empire could not be represented. There is no gainsaying that the coming conference is simply a postponed edition of the conference of 1930. I do not wonder however that my right hon. friend wants to get as far away as possible from the conference of 1930. If he will boldly throw overboard the proposals he made at that conference, all of us

Supply-Imperial Economic Conference
would be glad to have the line of separation as marked as possible. At the moment I should like my right hon. friend to indicate whether the subject of migration or settlement is to be one of the questions at the coming conference, and if so what will be the view or policy of the administration as put forth at the conference in respect thereto.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the right hon. leader of the opposition seems to be incapable of rendering a constructive suggestion about anything. His one purpose seems to be to destroy. If by any possible chance any credit could be derived by anyone other than himself from any act of state, he at once deprecates it and seizes the first opportunity to show that it has arisen from some suggestion or idea of his own. That may be the purpose of this discussion-it looks like it; to magnify himself and depreciate others. That seems to be his sole purpose in entering upon this discussion today. The item of $250,000 in the estimates we said yesterday might afford an opportunity for the right hon. gentleman and his friends to discuss the forthcoming economic conference. Let us see what he has done. First he has endeavoured to show that he was the author of it. Well, I am quite content.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am quite content. I am not at all concerned in whose brain cell the thought originated which subsequently blossomed into an act. I am not concerned with that; it is not a matter which gives me the least thought at the moment.
He then points out that this must be an adjourned conference. I ventured to suggest the other evening that I believed it was not so regarded, and I find that I am right. The reason was this: When the former conference was held in 1930 it was suggested by me, in the course of the few observations I made at the opening, that a period not exceeding six months should elapse during which an opportunity might be afforded for considering questions which were at the basis of any discussions which would result in concrete action. That was not accomplished, and at the end of the conference I moved it be adjourned, to be held within twelve months. Within twelve months it was not held, and when there was an election in Great Britain I sent invitations by cable asking if it were possible to have a new economic conference convened here. Whether or not it was to be regarded as an adjournment did not at that particular moment cross my mind. I had not thought about it in that sense,
and I cannot say that the matter gave me any cause for thought until the right hon. gentleman raised the point the other evening. Most Canadians-with the exception of the right hon. leader of the opposition-will be glad enough to have the conference in Ottawa, postponed or otherwise. In this strange desire that manifests itself in such peculiar ways that nothing shall happen unless he "happens" it, that nothing shall transpire unless he is behind the movement-that obsession that seizes him and has been apparent all through his public life, and never more than this afternoon-he says this is an adjourned conference. What difference does it make?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What difference does it
make? Does any hon. member see any difference between an adjourned conference and any other kind? Lest it should be thought that the government, in sending out an invitation to a conference to be held here in July next, should derive in the minds of the Canadian electorate any credit for having conceived or suggested the conference, he must say: "This is an adjourned conference; there is nothing about it for which this government can get credit. I sent an invitation in 1929 which was not accepted." Mr Chairman, surely we have got beyond that. Surely we have got beyond a debating school. Surely we have got beyond the idea held by the college student who says, "I, with my little bow and arrow-I shot cock robin." Surely we are past that stage. But no; the right hon. leader of the opposition is intent upon that.
That is the explanation of the discussion with respect to the postponed conference. So far as I can recall, the word "postponed" with respect to the conference has not been used in any communication which has passed, and the governments of the various sections of the empire, if one may judge by the responses they have sent to the invitations forwarded, have treated it as a conference convened by the Dominion of Canada. I had not thought of it in the sense of claiming any merit. I merely treat this government as being an instrument to bring about a gathering of the representatives of the British empire for the purpose of discussing matters which I believe to be of the utmost interest not only to the empire but to the peace of the world.
Now, in 1929 I made the observations to which the hon. gentleman referred, and I also ventured to call attention to the resources of this country and of other countries that comprise the British empire-nickel, asbestos, timber, and the other great natural
2786	COMMONS
Supply-Imperial Economic Conference
resources such as there are throughout every part of the world, in practically every zone, we have within the empire. I developed the idea that if we had thought more of that and less of other countries we might have had greater stability of trade, and I mentioned the two headings under which it seemed to me we might fairly consider our position-settlement and development. The problem of settlement I pointed out arose because in certain parts of this great empire there are areas in which you have congested population, while in others you have great open spaces in which you require population. I realize that the economic crisis through which the world is passing has made discussion of settlement a matter of extreme difficulty. When the right hon. gentleman asks whether it will ibe discussed or not, I can only say that individuals have suggested that the matter of migration might readily be discussed; not that there is any likelihood of migration of people from one part of the empire to the other at this moment, but that the whole subject might reasonably be discussed, not in detail, but looking to the future rather than to the present with improved conditions that must result if time is to bring about the changes which we believe it will. Under those circumstances doubtless the question of migration would be suggested for discussion. But it has not been placed upon any agenda or paper that has been circulated up to the moment beyond inquiries as to whether or not in the view of some, having regard to what has been suggested by others, the matter should be considered. Beyond that I cannot say. But any thoughtful man who looks into the future, who visualizes fifty years hence and considers what the position is in Great Britain with its population, must realize the one fact that is outstanding in this country, that if we are to survive in the end we must have more population. Every thoughtful man knows that at the moment economic conditions make it our business to see to it that we do what we can to prevent unemployment or lack of opportunity for employment becoming more acute by reason of bringing additional people into this country. We have pointed that out. There come crises in the history of all nations, and at the moment we have a crisis during which it is not desirable to add to our population. But you have great congested areas of the British empire. The people there should, it seems to me, if one looks to the future half a century hence, find opportunity for development in other parts of that empire that their ancestors, as well as those who now live within the immediate territory affected, won for them 
and for all who might come after. In those spheres of thinly settled communities there are opportunities for those who come from the congested areas to find and make for themselves homes. That is what I mentioned with respect to the question of settlement and development.
Now, I am willing to submit to any impartial tribunal of my fellow-citizens if they think it is worth considering as constructive criticism on the part of the leader of a great party who has been Prime Minister to try to imply that development does not mean trade. Would any thoughful man say that? Would any one who is not actuated by some motives that prevent him from seeing the real situation not realize that development and trade mean exactly the same thing? I had been pointing out in this instance as I did in others the fact-and I cited from Hansard that in this empire we had vast deposits of nickel, asbestos and other raw materials, and I said:
I will not at this time endeavour to point out what the resources of this empire are, nor how great a part Canada plays in any development of these resources. In nickel, asbestos, lead, tin, gold, silver, metals, minerals, wood products-in all these there are abundant resources in Canada as well as in other parts of the empire: copper in Rhodesia, diamonds in South Africa and great cotton fields in India and Egypt. We have one-fourth of the people of the world, although it is true that part of them are backward races unsuited to our country. So I suggest to the government that since England can no longer take the lead with respect to. this matter, this country should call a great economic conference to meet in Ottawa. Let the Dominion of Canada take the lead.
I was pointing out the basis of all trade. I had referred to our vast and fertile plains, to our great and varied resources, and I had pointed out they were not in one part of the empire, but in Rhodesia, India and other parts of the world. Surely if development means anything it means trade; and trade means development-the development of our resources. I believe this economic conference that is to meet here in July must sit down and consider the question of the development of the resources of the empire. I have pointed out so often that I will not repeat in this house that these great resources are held in trust by the crown for all the people who are within the empire, meaning not only the people of to-day but the people of to-morrow. I ventured then to point out that the toil and the sacrifice and the struggle of men and women in days long since gone by had won these for this population. I believe that still. As I have said, these resources scattered all over the world are held in trust by the crown -the common symbol of a common holding

Supply-Imperial Economic Conference
in trust for all the people of the commonwealth of nations that comprise the empire.
The problem is the development of those resources. That involves in the largest sense the trade of peoples, whether or not, for instance, the requirements with respect to nickel in one part of the empire might be met by the resources of Canada, and the requirements of Canada with respect to other raw materials might be well met by drawing upon the resources of some other part of the empire. In other words, reciprocity in empire products and in empire trade I believe would be very valuable and beneficial. I have ever endeavoured in this house and elsewhere to advocate reciprocity in empire trade, pointing out that I believe if we could serve the interests of one part by reciprocally improving its conditions we were doing a very great service to the whole. I will not dwell upon these matters. I shall leave it to the judgment of this committee as to whether or not the question of development in the sense in which it was used by me with the surrounding context did not involve in the largest and truest sense development of trade in every part of the empire. I am not unmindful of the fact that mistakes may always be made, and they always are made. I certainly am one of those who believe that the only crime you can attribute to a public man is that he remains ignorant despite the warnings of age and experience. Opportunity is afforded to all of us to add to the sum total of our knowledge, and I have never been one of those who are not prepared to admit error-


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -who are not prepared
to admit error for the purpose of indicating that I have secured benefits by reason of age and experience. But there are certain principles which endure, and the principles to which in my youth I adhered, and which I still believe in, are that we have in this great commonwealth-not by accident-the greatest estate that Providence ever gave to a people; I believe we are accountable for the development of that estate, and the manner in which we have developed and are developing it will be the measure of our sense of obligation and realization of our own trusteeship. If the government, in its endeavour to bring about such a meeting in this city, has had in mind one object more than any other it has been that the men and women-because women on the outside will do much to influence the opinions of men within, as they always have- who meet here as representatives of this vast commonwealth, will endeavour to the best of
their ability to devise policies whereby mutual benefits may come with advantage to the whole, that we may, in vigour and strength, maintain that commonwealth which, I am as convinced as I can be of anything in this world, means more for the preservation of the liberty and freedom of mankind than any other secular institution the world has erected. That is my position.
If you ask as to our policies with respect to the conference I can only say that other governments as well as this realize that this is not a mere meeting together of men for the purpose of dealing with the material things of life. There are other forces that must be reckoned with; there are other values that must be determined, and that very fact operates in men's minds, governs their actions, restrains their conduct and disciplines their observations. Any thoughtful suggestions that may come as to how these ends might be best accomplished will be welcomed, but carping criticism, cynicism and endeavours to make it appear that one's views in 1929 with regard to development and settlement do not agree with one's views in 1932 with regard to the advancement of trade and the improvement of economic conditions, are neither helpful nor constructive. This is merely elemental cynicism disguised as a form of what might be called elementary criticism.
That is the position, and if we seek assistance by suggestion it does not mean for a single moment that we do not realize that there is a body of public opinion that is not represented by observations such as those to which we have just listened. There are thoughtful men and women in this country belonging to the Liberal party who are every day making timely suggestions as to how we can best make a success of this gathering. They are not thinking in terms of party; they are not concerned with whether or not there is a Conservative government or a Liberal government in power at the moment. What they are concerned with is that there shall be the very greatest effort made, at this great moment in the history of the world, this time of its greatest crisis, on the part of representative men from every part of a quarter of its area, to evolve policies and formulate plans for the future that will ensure peace, happiness and prosperity to the peoples they represent and, by mutual concession and expressions of good will with respect to trade and the development of the resources of this estate of ours, that we may be able to attain that end. Despite all that may be said and all the unfair allusions that may be made by
2788	COMMONS
Supply-Imperial Economic Conference
the Liberal party, its chiefs and its lieutenants, on the public platform or in this house, we will endeavour to the best of our ability to discharge the responsibility that the Canadian people have imposed upon us, and advance reciprocal benefits, if we can, to every part of this empire in order to ensure the harmonious development of the whole and the peace and prosperity of all its peoples.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall not
endeavour to follow my right hon. friend in the vituperative strain he has thought it advisable to adopt, not only towards myself but towards the Liberal party as a whole. One would have thought that at a moment such as this he above all others would have endeavoured to disclose, by his words and his manner generally, a desire for cooperation in connection with a great imperial undertaking such as that *which is about to take place. Fortunately my right hon. friend will be judged bj' his own words and acts, and I am quite prepared to leave any judgment respecting him to that record.
What I do think is important in a matter of this kind is that there should be historical accuracy in regard to all matters, and certainly those matters which affect other parts of the British Empire as well as Canada. My previous references were made wholly with the view of placing on Hansard an accurate historical statement of the developments which led to the present conference. I thought I did my -right hon. friend a kindness by quoting his own words, but I see I have done him an unkindness; I see there is nothing that strikes him quite so hard as his own utterances when they are brought back to him. I spared him, in the first remarks I made, any quotation from that part of Hansard where he sought to claim the entire credit for this conference. I had no motive so petty as that of comparison between my right hon. friend and myself; I am sure he is welcome to any superior position he may wish to assume. I only desired to maintain an accurate historical record, particularly when my right hon. friend sought to take away from one who was a really great man in the leadership of affairs in this country some credit that attaches to him in matters of imperial affairs. I will read from page 2408 of Hansard for this year so that the house may see for itself whether I was claiming credit for all that was done; who, in fact, the "I" was who made the claim:
Mr. Bennett: Well, if they are interested in reading Hansard they will find that as long ago as 1928-

I think that should have been 1929.
-I had said -that if we had power my first effort would be to endeavour to call an economic conference of the British empire in this city. I went to London with a very definite idea in my mind. I gave expression to it, and I believed it would be received exactly as it was received. But I said there was a principle that had to be settled first. Those who will do me the honour of reading what I said wil-l find clearly stated the principle that must first be settled. The electors of Great Britain settled it. As soon as they had settled it I invited the representatives of every part of the British empire to come to this city to a conference, and the date has been fixed for the 21st day of July. They are coming, so they say. Therefore the purpose which I had in mind in 1928, which I never failed to keep before me, the one ambition that I entertained if we did come to power I hoped to see realized. In that regard may I say that I have under my hand the memorandum left by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1902, when he ceased to agree with his colleagues and took a definite stand with respect to Imperial preference. It is true it was not followed by action, it is true it was not followed by any considered effort to achieve it, but when T read it it will be realized that we at least have now seen accomplished that which he said should be accomplished but failed to accomplish, as did his successors in office.
I leave it to hon. members of the house whether my right hon. friend's own words do *not speak more eloquently than it would be *possible for any individual to do, as to who is *claiming undue credit and seeking to take away from others credit which is their due.


Ernest Lapointe: At the risk of drawing
upon myself another lecture from the right hon. gentleman, I desire to venture a few words. In the first place I am glad that the right hon. gentleman seems to consider this coming conference as a new venture, altogether free from any impediments which the conference of 1930 might have placed in the way. My right hon. friend seems to have modified his views to some extent, though he will not admit it. He spoke of Viscount Snowden's interpretation of his words in view of the context of the speech in which he made the proposal which I indicated a few moments ago. I happen to have the words of Viscount Snowden, uttered after that offer had been made by my right hon. friend, and he certainly interpreted the proposal exactly as it was made. Speaking at Manchester some time afterwards, Viscount Snowden made two definite pronouncements about his own and his government's views regarding tariffs. I quote from the Manchester Guardian:
It had been reported, he said, that the government was considering the imposition of an allround 10 per cent import duty for revenue purposes. "No government in which I am in charge of the national finances will ever give serious consideration to a proposal like that."

Supply-Imperial Economic Conference
Again, referring to the government as a whole: "We said we were anxious to do everything practicable to foster and encourage our imperial trade, but we would not support any proposal which involved the taxation of food, raw materials, or a general protectionist policy. That still remains the attitude of the government."
I quote that merely to show what Viscount Snowden thought of the proposal then made. Whether he was right or wrong, he obviously viewed the offer of my right hon. friend in the same way as I indicated it this afternoon.


Mr. HACKETT:: He must have changed
his mind since.


Ernest Lapointe: I am not sure about that;
I do not think he has changed his mind. My hon. friends are wrong altogether in their view of what has happened in England. They think that England has become protectionist for all time. That is not true. It is merely an expedient, as they know, so much so that the members of that so-called National government in England are speaking against protection at the present time. I read only a few days ago a violent and bitter indictment of protection by Sir Herbert Samuel, who is one of the leading ministers in that government.
Of course, this is a time when all things happen. We are living in an abnormal period in the history of the world and it seems rather strange that these things should happen. But it shows that protection as a permanent policy has not yet been accepted by England. They had a doctor's mandate, apparently, but they agreed to disagree on many things, and this is one of them. I could quote views of Sir Herbert Samuel with regard to an economic unit in the British Commonwealth of Nations, and those views certainly are in harmony with the views I hold personally.
So far as this coming conference is concerned-and I am not criticizing the policy of the government if I modestly suggest some things regarding it-my right hon. friend says that there is no policy. He is inviting suggestions, though the way he answers them is not very pleasant to those who offer the suggestions. May I suggest to my right hon. friend that perhaps he is wrong when he tries to imitate his High Commissioner in London by disparaging the mental equipment ol those who do not agree with him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that about anyone. I said that one gentleman had a somewhat superior mental equipment to another, both on the other side.


Ernest Lapointe: I must have misunderstood my right hon. friend, then; certainly we have enough of that sort of thing from
the high commissioner, who thinks that all those who do not agree with him are of short vision or low calibre or something of that kind. However, this conference, to be at all successful, must proceed, I submit, along the lines of lowering the tariff. It would be impossible to come to any understanding and to any successful conclusion by adhering to the policies as expressed by my right hon. friend at the conference of 1930. There is emerging from the present depression something that justifies the saying that it is an ill wind-


Richard Bedford Bennett: An ill wind that blows nobody good.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, an ill wind that blows nobody good; because many people have begun to realize that this race of high tariffs which is being entered into everywhere is a mad race. The idea that the foreigner is a person who must buy but never sell has unfortunately spread from Bedlam to every capital of the world. People are realizing to-day that it is a mistake, in view of the results that are so apparent. The international trade of the world is at a standstill. We have been erecting barriers everywhere. My right hon. friend's proposal in 1930, that we should not lower our tariff at all but that we should raise it ten per cent higher, except for exempting Great Britain and the other dominions from that ten per cent, was certainly not a fair offer, if I may use a mild expression, to make the sister nations of the commonwealth. What benefit will England obtain if she cannot get through Canada's door? What benefit will she obtain because foreign countries are still ten per cent further from our door than she is? And that is exactly the proposal that was made. Indeed, what benefit could we derive ourselves?
I agree with my right hon. friend in what he said this afternoon, that this should be a negotiation based on mutual advantages. I prefer that to the word sacrifices. If you try to base the maintenance of the British Commonwealth of Nations on sacrifices, you are inviting something which at some time or other may be dangerous. What is better is mutual benefit, and no fixed bargaining, nothing that would be a fetter instead of a tie. The union of the British nations must rest upon perfect and absolute freedom. I do not like the term economic unit, which was used this afternoon by one of the speakers on the resolution of my hon. friend from Acadia. An economic union of the empire would mean an economic group against the rest of the world. Let us try to have larger and freer trade as between the nations of
2790	COMMONS
Supply-Imperial Economic Conference
the empire. But we must remain free and autonomous in our economic policies as well as in our other policies, for that is the only way to remain friends and brothers. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing so dangerous, as you know, as business matters and business difficulties between members of a family; they are much more serious and much graver than friction between strangers in business affairs. Our understanding, if there is one- and I hope there will be-must be absolutely founded rather on a gentleman's agreement, a friendly entente as between ourselves, than on any strict rule and bargaining based merely on self interest. I, if I may use the first personal pronoun in a modest way, have always held those views. But I am pleased that I am not alone; I have been sharing them with others. They were those of Mr. Asquith, of Lord Grey. If I had time-and unfortunately I cannot be present to-night-I could quote expressions of opinion of many people, but even at the present time the leading economists and writers in the empire reviews are alluding to the very danger which I have been suggesting. I have in my hand the last edition of the Spectator, of April 30, 1932, and it indicates exactly what I have just been saying about the danger which is ahead. Let me quote only a sentence:
If one of the delegates at Ottawa, thinking to do his duty by those who sent him, tries to get the better of another delegate, the rift in the family is opened. No doubt we should love our butcher and our baker as ourselves, but a still prior duty is to love the brotherhood or sisterhood, and we may be sure that those who do not first show love in the family do not show it in "business." And, if bargains must be, there is danger of forgetting that the best bargain is never the one by which you or I gain, but that by which we both gain.
My last word is that I think we must see to it that the empire does not stand or fall on or because of the tariff. Our idea of union between the British nations must not be based on tariffs, on duties, or even on preferences.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall be absent this
evening, and if it be the desire of the committee that the item should stand, it may stand for further consideration; otherwise we shall go into Agriculture.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Some of us would like to
speak on the item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The item then will stand and we shall go on with Agriculture this evening. As I say, I shall not be present

to-night. Therefore I have suggested, if the committee so desires, the item may stand and we shall proceed with the Agriculture items.
Item stands.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
-Dairying, $231,300.
Mr. VALLANCE:: I wonder if the minister would give us some idea as to how he proposes to effect this decrease of $63,700 as compared with the expenditure under this item last year.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: The decrease of $63,700 is distributed as follows:
Actual disbursements from the appropriation for the development of the dairying industry have for the past two years been about $275,000 and each year, the amount which lapsed
was about	$ 20,000
Vote for National Dairy Council is
eliminated	 5,000
Ten per cent of total pay roll outside
service	 16,636
It is suggested that the following deductions be made effective:
(1)	Printing	 1,000
(2)	Temporary laboratory assistant
at Quebec	 296
Temporary laboratory assistant
at Montreal	 470
Temporary laboratory assistant
at Toronto	 375
Temporary laboratory assistant
at Winnipeg	 280
(3)	Three positions (cargo inspectors)
to remain vacant	 5,500
Rental of one office	 120
Dec., Jan. and Feb. salary and expenses of four cargo inspectors (formerly sent to Saint John, N.B. and Portland, Maine)	 2,500
(7)	Reduction in cost of iced car
services		1,000
(8)	Creamery cold storage bonuses
paid	 4,300

Supply-Agriculture
(12)	1 position (inspector of dairy
products) to remain vacant..	1,620
(13)	Milk utilization service:
Cost of making and preparing exhibits, demonstrations and
exhibitions	 2,000
Special investigator of adulteration of dairy products.. ..	2,603


Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):: May I ask who is the acting dairy commissioner in Doctor Ruddick's place?


Robert Weir: Mr. Singleton.


Mr. BROWN:: It seems to me that before we discuss these estimates in detail we ought to have some explanation as to the general policy that is behind the reduction. It will be observed that there is a total reduction in the estimates for agriculture of $3,297,471.74. It may very well be that in some departments of the government economy can be very properly practised. But in view of the importance of agriculture in the economic life of Canada,-which is recognized by every member of this house; for over and over again we have heard it stated that the farmers are the backbone of the country and that unless agriculture prospers there can be no prosperity in Canada-and that in this country we can only hope for a restoration of favourable economic conditions by the rehabilitation of agriculture, it does seem to me that it is false economy to make such drastic cuts in the agriculture estimates.


The CHAIRMAN:: Unless it is with the unanimous consent of the committee, the members must confine themselves to the item under discussion.


John Livingstone Brown: I think it has usually been the custom in this house, Mr. Chairman, to have a discussion of the estimates in general.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I know, but I am stating the rule.


John Livingstone Brown: We have had a great many proposals for the help of agriculture. This afternoon we had a discussion on the five cents a bushel bonus on wheat, and it was quite evident from the discussion that the farmers are not very greatly enamoured of a bonus on wheat or on anything else. It is generally recognized that such a procedure is wrong, and while temporary relief might be afforded by a bonus it could not ultimately redound to the advantage of agriculture or of the country in general. Of course we know that these estimates are not sanctioned simply by the
Minister of Agriculture himself, but represent the joint conclusion of the whole cabinet, and undoubtedly the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have set the seal of their approval on the reductions that have been made. But I repeat it does seem strange that at this time, when agriculture is at such a low ebb that everything that can possibly be done to assist it should be done,-these estimates should be cut so drastically. There may be some places where economies would be desirable. There may have been expenditures in the past in certain directions that were not fully justified. I think the hon. member for Weyburn and myself will heartily approve of the action of the minister and the government in cutting out the grant to the National Dairy Council. The council became simply a propagandist organization to promote the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite who are advocating protection. But in many of the estimates before us there should be no reduction at all. Indeed, the conditions that prevail in this country to-day would warrant an increase in many of these items. That is all I wish to say generally on these items, as we shall have the opportunity to discuss each one as it comes up and to point out the evil that is likely to result if these reductions are carried into effect.


Mr. HAY:: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he is opposed to the bonus on wheat?


John Livingstone Brown: There is no bonus on wheat.


Thomas Hay: The proposed bonus.


John Livingstone Brown: I am not in favour of bonuses of any kind. I think that is a wrong way to help agriculture, and if hon. gentlemen oposite would give a little more consideration to the real difficulties in which the farmer is involved it would be better. It is a mystery to me why men should persist in advocating a bonus on wheat and yet stand for high tariffs on everything the farmer buys. Let us get straight in our thinking on these matters that affect agriculture.


Robert Weir: The question raised by the hon. member for Lisgar was as to the policy behind these cuts in the estimates. I would suggest that the best way to answer his query would be to deal with each item as we come to it, when the explanation for the reduction can be given.


John Vallance: Before that is done, may I point out that the estimates of the Department of Agriculture are being decreased by about thirty-three and one third per cent, a decrease greater than in the estimates of any [DOT]other department of the government. I am
Supply-Agriculture

absolutely in accord with the argument made by the hon. member for Lisgar that this is no time to cut the estimates for agriculture. I wonder if the hon. member who asked the hon. member for Lisgar just where he or we stood regarding wheat bonuses was in the house yesterday when I asked the Prime Minister the intention of the government in connection with bonusing not only wheat but all farm products. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour quite frankly pointed out that at the present time the government had no policy, but that if conditions arose which would warrant their doing so they were prepared to take the necessary steps. Up to the *present time, however, the government have admitted that they have no policy in connection with the bonusing of agricultural products. Realizing that all the estimates which come before this house must be approved by the treasury board, I should like the Minister of Agriculture to tell me why all other ministers heading the various governmental departments were able to convince the treasury board that it was not necessary to make the cuts in their departments which were found necessary in the Department of Agriculture. As shown by the estimates, agriculture carries the greatest decrease of any governmental department. Why should that be so?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I should like to read
again to the committee standing order 58, paragraph (2), which is as follows:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.


John Livingstone Brown: During the earlier part of
this session we got along very well without a strict enforcement of that rule. I purpose to continue in the same way.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am sorry, but the
regulation is there.


Thomas McMillan: Do I understand that when Doctor Ruddick's leave of absence is finished Mr. Singleton will take his place?


Robert Weir: The position will be filled by the Civil Service Commission. The . six months' leave of absence will have expired in August.


John Vallance: The present Deputy
Speaker was not able to be with us during the earlier part of the session, and I should like to inform him that in his absence a wide discussion was allowed on all estimates. If he is going to confine us to the item under discussion I should like to ask the minister now regarding another appointment about to 
be made in his department, namely that of Deputy Minister of Agriculture. Is he in a position to tell the committee and the country who will be appointed? I know the position is not to be filled by the Civil Service Commission.


An hon. MEMBER:: Would you like it?


John Vallance: Offer it to me, and we
will see.


Robert Weir: We shall not be
able to fill the position until August, when the six months' period will have expired. When the position is filled the hon. member will know who has been selected.


John Vallance: In view of the answer
the minister has given, I should like to know why the vacancy occurred. Was there a voluntary retirement of the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, or were the conditions such that he would no longer tolerate his position?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I should like to
interject-


John Vallance: Wait a minute-


William Richard Motherwell: Just a minute; 1
rise to a point of order.


An hon. MEMBER:: One at a time.


William Richard Motherwell: If the Deputy
Speaker desires to exercise some authority, and wishes to show how much he knows about running the committee, why does he not draw attention to the fact that this discussion should come up under civil government? The question raised by my hon. friend from South Battleford is not properly debatable at this point. I draw attention to this merely because the Deputy Speaker is sometimes a little bit smart in pulling us up. I now draw his attention to a point he has missed.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member is
quite right. This is not the proper time to discuss the appointment of a deputy minister,


Mr. TOTZKE:: It is quite proper to discuss the retirement of a deputy minister.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: We are on a dairying item; the discussion which has arisen comes under civil government.


John Vallance: Mr. Chairman-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


John Vallance: I rise to a point of
order. I do not think you are fair.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Vallance: Because T think you will agree with me that-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.

Supply-A griculture


John Vallance: If he disagrees with me I will be ruled out of order. You will agree with me, Mr. Chairman, that all the items dealing with civil government have now been disposed of. Are we to be denied the right to ask the minister questions? If so, I purpose appealing from the ruling of the chair.


Albert Frederick Totzke: We were given to understand when the civil government items were put through that we would be allowed fuller discussion later on.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member for
Melville raised a point of order, and I ruled that according to standing order 58 his point is well taken.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Mr. Chairman, I ask hon.
members if I am not correct when I state that we were given to understand when the items for civil government were passed that general policies of each department might be discussed when other estimates were before the house.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I have no objection,
but the hon. member for Melville has raised a point of order, which I must decide according to the rules.


Robert Weir: The civil government items of the Department of Agriculture have not been passed.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: No, they have not been
passed.


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Chairman dairying is a very important branch of the agricultural industry. In my remarks earlier in the day I pointed out that dairymen were selling their products at less than their cost of production. I ask the minister if the government has any policy dealing with price levels of dairy products.


Edward James Young: What about the duty on
butter?


Robert Weir: After taking office
this government did take steps to assure the Canadian market to the Canadian farmer. We have no authority outside Canada to influence in any way the price of butter on the world market, where our surplus butter has to be sold.


Robert Gardiner: I appreciate the answer
the minister has given, but I am afraid it is totally inadequate to meet the situation. We must consider the price level of agricultural and dairy products in so far as they affect Canadian farmers. Hon. members opposite before taking office told the Canadian people that they had a cure for the marketing situation. The government has been in power 41761-176
about twenty-two months, and the house and country has waited patiently to see what policy they would pursue to back up their statements during the election campaign. They have not brought forward any policies. We have unemployment, a condition with which they were supposed to deal, but so far as the unemployed are concerned, the only thing is to give them unemployment relief. But let us come back to dairying again. How long does the minister expect the Canadian dairyman to produce dairy products at a loss? What is the government going to do about it? Have they any policy to deal with the situation?


Mr. ERNST:: In the opinion of the hon.
member for Acadia, is it not rather a problem of currency than a problem of policy for the Agriculture department as such?


Mr. REID:: The Minister of Trade and
Commerce did not say so.


Robert Gardiner: If the government even had a policy with regard to currency, that might cure the situation we are now discussing.


William Gordon Ernst: That is what I asked.


Robert Gardiner: But so far as I know
the government have not got a policy even with respect to currency. I ask the minister in all fairness whether his department has any policy to deal with the conditions under which the dairyman is producing his products to-day and selling them at a price below the cost of production.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Will the
hon. member permit a question?


Robert Gardiner: I have addressed a
question to the minister, and I trust he will be able to give me some information.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Does the hon. member advocate the bonusing of farm products?


Mr. SPENCER:: Now that we have heard
from the two assistant ministers, I should be glad if the minister himself would reply to the question of the hon. member for Acadia.


Robert Weir: My understanding
is that this government so far as agricultural products are concerned did not promise to . cure all ills, as has been suggested, but rather we promised that we would give the Canadian market to the Canadian farmer. If this discussion, instead of being confined to each item as we come to it, is to take on a general character, I would crave permission of the

Supply-Agriculture

committee for a few minutes to discuss the question of agriculture as I see it, and to deal with some suggestions to which we have been giving serious consideration.


An hon. MEMBER:: You will have to ask the chairman.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Is the item carried?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Mr. GARDINER' The minister has made a request to the committee, Mr. Chairman, that he be permitted to give information with respect to some suggestions dealing with the general agricultural situation to which the government and his department have been giving serious consideration. I think the committee would be very glad indeed to get that information, for that is what we are really waiting to hear.


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes, give him a
chance.


Robert Gardiner: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you give the minister that opportunity.


Mr. BOURASSA:: And everybody else.


Robert Weir: Have I the consent of the committee?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Unanimous consent.


Mr. VENIOT:: The same privilege to be
accorded to the other side.


Robert Weir: I think, Mr. Chairman, all hon. members realize that perhaps from the standpoint of agriculture no country in the world has so many difficult problems. The fact that we have about six hundred thousand farmers scattered over an area so extensive from east to west and from north to south, operating under a wide range of climatic conditions and producing a variety of farm products, give rise to many difficult problems. For instance, due to climatic conditions alone it is necessary for us to give careful study to ascertain what breeds of cattle are best suited to the different sections of the country. We have also had to carry on extensive investigations, more extensive than those carried on in any other country, in, order to develop grass, grain and other seeds best suited to our varying climatic conditions. Then again our fruit farmers labour under a great handicap because along four thousand miles of boundary line their competitors in the United States have a decided advantage over them with respect to climate, for fruit and vegetables can be produced earlier in the 
United States and they come on our market at a time when our fruit and vegetable growers feel the competition very injurious to their interests. That in itself has always been a very difficult problem for our agriculturists.
But difficult as it was, in 1929, due to the fact that the tariff barriers had been raised so high against the entry of our farm products into the United1 States, we found ourselves confronted with another problem that was almost more difficult to solve than those which we had already overcome; I refer to the problem of marketing. Much has been said about production, and for years the United States tariff was such that it was possible for our farmers to market their products to advantage along the boundary line. In fact, it was as though our farmers had an extended domestic market in the United States. One of the results of the proximity of the large cities to the south, where ou-r farmers could market their products, was to give direction to the kind of products they produced. But with the raising of the tariff wall, shutting out our goods from the United States, we were confronted with an entirely new question, the question of marketing our farm products through our eastern and western gateways. No preparation had been made to meet that contingency by any previous government because it had not been necessary, due to the reasons that I have fairly set forth. Therefore we are now confronted with a problem even more difficult than that of diversified production-the problem of marketing. To this problem I have perhaps given more attention than to any other in connection with agriculture since I took this portfolio.
Irrespective of party affiliations, we must meet fairly this question: What can we, as agriculturists, produce to the best advantage to compete with similar products on the European market? Because that is practically the only market that is left to us, particularly the market of the United Kingdom. To decide that question we must take into consideration many different factors or elements. First, we have to consider the long freight haul, whether rail or steamship. Then due to our short summers and long winters the cost of certain types of farming is very much increased and seriously handicaps our farmers in competing on the world's market with the farmers of other nations who do not labour under such handicaps. We must also take into consideration the products that we can produce in sufficient quantities so that once we obtain a foothold on the world's market -the British market-we can ensure a uniform continuity of supply of such high quality as

Supply-A griculture
will enable us to compete with the products of other countries. Another very important question is the cost of production. Not the least question is the standard of living of the farmers who are putting their goods on the world market. Taking all these things into consideration I feel that we might agree to this extent, that wre can produce one product which cannot be equalled by any other agricultural country; that is wheat. Whether or not we can produce wheat as cheaply as it can be produced in other countries, due to the difference in standards of living, is a question perhaps not yet decided. Personally I think we can, but even if that is so we still have a big handicap because of our freight rates, both on land and on sea. In butter I think it has been proven that we cannot compete with New Zealand or Australia as far as quality is concerned; for one thing we have not the natural advantages possessed by both these countries, which help them to produce butter so cheaply. However, there is another dairy product which we can produce and sell in the old country markets at a premium; I refer to cheese. So I think if we are to concentrate on dairy products we should concentrate on cheese, and since many think we cannot separate butter and cheese, what assists one is bound to assist the other as well.
As I stated at the outset, in thinking over these problems and discussing them with men especially interested in agriculture, on both sides of this house irrespective of politics, I was confronted with one great question. We have given the Canadian market to the Canadian farmers as far as tariffs have allowed us to do so, but the question is how we can extend the effective range of that tariff. This very small surplus of ten million pounds of butter depressed the price in this country from 28 cents to 17 cents a pound. Is there any way by which that small surplus can be lifted off our market and placed on the old country market? There we are struck with the Patterson scheme of Australia, which I think no one can deny has been a great success. That, however, is not a government measure; it is a matter of voluntary cooperation between certain creameries. In Australia the number of creameries is limited, and it was a comparatively simple matter to get them to cooperate in such a voluntary scheme by which they themselves put a levy of so much on every pound of butter they manufactured. Thus they set up a fund to be used by their export board to absorb a certain amount of the loss on each pound of butter exported. That scheme has worked 41761-176J
very successfully in keeping the price of Australian butter higher than the world price.
The question with which we are faced is how to overcome that difficulty in connection with our agricultural products. With that in mind we did contemplate, and are still contemplating the introduction of a national farm products marketing act. We have fully discussed this matter with hon. members on both sides to see if it would not be possible in some way, by setting up such a board, to work out some scheme-which we thought we had fairly well worked out-to lift this surplus off our market and thus extend the effective range of the protection given by the tariff. However, although I was quite decided in my own mind, in discussing the question with impartial people whose opinions I value highly they pointed out that the Imperial conference, about which so much has been said, taking place in the near future, it might be better to appoint a number of men fully representative of the whole agricultural life of Canada to discuss fully the question I have briefly outlined. There is something to be said for that. Although there might be some benefit in having a board set up before the Imperial conference, on the other hand there would be an advantage in not setting up the board until we have had the benefit of the discussions which will take place here, and until we have seen the effect they may have on our relationships with the other parts of the British Empire.
So far as the dairy industry is concerned, then, we have done this: We have made every effort to improve the quality of the stock that is producing the cream from which our butter is made. We have done everything possible to send out information with regard to the lowering of the cost of production, through experiments in connection with feeding. We have also given to the Canadian farmer the Canadian market. It will be remembered that the dairy industry was discussed last year when my estimates were up, and it was stated then that an impartial and conservative estimate of the value of that Jgeislation was about $12,000,000. I asked my own officers to make an estimate of the value of that legislation, and their figures were somewhat in excess of the amount I have just given. Those who are interested in the dairy industry will realize that during the past few months the very fact that we were able to keep out butter from other countries raised the price of butter in Canada within a very short period to 28 cents per pound, but with the advent of warm weather, production increased about
Supply-Agriculture

20 per cent; we accumulated a visible surplus, and the price dropped to the present level. It is hoped that through the formation of a marketing board some means may be worked out to extend the effective range of our tariff by lifting off the surplus of butter we have in Canada, which has been so detrimental to the price.


John Livingstone Brown: I think the minister is
giving us a number of very good reasons why these estimates should not be reduced.


Robert Weir: I am informed that any reduction in this estimate will not in any way lower the efficiency of the branch.


John Livingstone Brown: I am speaking of the agriculture estimates as a whole.


Robert Weir: We are dealing now with item 39.


Thomas McMillan: I should like to ask the minister if there is an agent in London, England, acting for the Department of Agriculture.


Robert Weir: There are trade commissioners in England to act for this and other departments.


Thomas McMillan: Is there more than one?


Robert Weir: I think there are five or six in all.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I heartily approve of the suggestion with regard to a marketing board. I should like to go even further and see our external trade handled entirely by import and export boards. That is coming; sooner or later we will have a condition that will compel us to adopt a policy of that kind. In connection with this marketing board for dairy products I wish to ask the minister if he can give us any idea when it will be set up and what its functions will be.


Robert Weir: I thought I had
made it clear that it is not decided yet whether it would be better to bring a marketing board into being at the present time or whether it would be better to wait, in view of the Imperial conference and the many difficulties with which we will be confronted in forming regulations and making this board effective. I am sure no person in the house appreciates better than the hon. member for Bow River the far-reaching results which will follow the setting up of a new board of this kind. Therefore it is felt, though not definitely decided,

that it may be better to appoint men representative of agriculture throughout Canada to make a special study of this question and report before the next session of parliament.


Edward Joseph Garland: Of course
there can be no objection to the minister getting the best information on the subject that it is possible to get, but his last statement would clearly indicate that there is no intention on his part to appoint such a marketing board at least until the next session of parliament. Frankly I fail to follow his reasoning.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Edward Joseph Garland: If hon. gentlemen would be quiet they could hear me. I suggest to the minister that his reasoning is not easily followed. I should imagine that because of the coming Imperial conference he would deem it exceedingly advisable to have our marketing, in connection with dairy and other agricultural products, thoroughly organized. He would then have an advantage. At least he would be on an equal basis with several of the other dominions and he would have an advantage over those whose marketing was not organized. I wonder if he would consider that for a moment. I submit that he could enter the Imperial conference m a much stronger position if he had a marketing board.


Robert Weir: That has been and
is being fully considered. One of the questions that doubtless will come up at the Imperial conference is the problem of the various countries putting their goods on the market of the United Kingdom with a bonus, or supported by an artificial levy, and that was one of the advantages which it was felt might come to us by refraining from making the appointment until after the Imperial conference.


Thomas McMillan: What is the
name of the agricultural agent in London.


Robert Weir: There is no agricultural agent in London; I spoke of trade commissioners in the old country. There was an agricultural agent in London, but it was felt that the work would be better coordinated by having, rather than trade commissioners, agricultural agents, and the. different organizations operating with them could all carry on better under one head.


Thomas McMillan: Have they
their offices in London?


Robert Weir: London, Glasgow,
Bristol, Cardiff, Liverpool.

Supply-Agriculture


James Lorimer Ilsley: The minister says he has
had in mind the forming of a marketing board. What will be the functions of the board?


Robert Weir: I do not think it would be fair for me to commit myself to a board when we are not yet in a position to decide whether or not such a board shall be appointed or what its powers will be.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have before me the annual report of the National Dairy Council of Canada, from which I quote the following:
The final result of last season's operations in the butter market is well known. We exported 10,680,000 pounds, chiefly to England. The butter was on the whole well received, and more could have been sold if the offering price had been accepted. Finally we entered the winter season with too much butter on hand, or to put it more accurately, too much to inspire confidence in the market. An effort was made in October and November, to bring about a cooperative export of the assumed surplus. This effort failed, as it was not found possible to induce certain large holders to adhere to it, and the rest would not sacrifice in order to make profits for those who would not take their share of the loss. The market gradually weakened, and in February slipped away to unprecedentedly low levels. The fall at that time was greatly aggravated by banking pressure on certain weak holders who were forced to sell regardless of the market condition. It is questionable whether this policy was wise either from the bankers' standpoint or that of the industry, for it brought about a general lowering of the price level and caused widespread loss and unsettlement.
The question which the foregoing suggests is this:	How will the marketing board be
able to prevent a recurrence of that condition? Would the marketing board be able in some way to lift off the Canadian market the surplus spoken of in that report? If so, how could that be done? The minister must have given a great deal of thought to the subject, and while it is unfair to ask him to state in detail the powers of a. body at present non-existent,. still I am sure a good many members would like to know, how the situation could be met.


Robert Weir: What the hon.
member refers to occurred a little over a year ago. It had been realized that the surplus butter produced in Canada was produced chiefly in the west, and so long as it cannot be removed off the market it will flow into eastern Canada, depressing the price here, and then on to the world market. It was felt, after consideration, that even if the large creameries in the west would agree to make a levy among themselves of half a cent per pound on the butter they manufactured, and
put that into a fund to purchase the butter that was regarded as a surplus in western. Canada, if there were, say, 10,000,000 pounds to export and 225,000,000 pounds produced, one-tenth of a cent per pound on the 225,000-000 pounds produced, distributed over the 10,000,000 pounds, would raise the price of the 10,000,000 pounds in the neighbourhood of 2.25 cents per pound. That, roughly, was the scheme under consideration. The representatives of the different creameries in the west met with me and we went into the matter fully for one or two days, then the conference was adjourned, meeting later in Montreal. Some of the creameries represented had also their own distributing concern in the east, and they thought that they were being called upon to make a contribution that would not net themselves anything. In that they were fair. If, however, it could have been made compulsory, dealing with that incident alone, I have no doubt that the condition that did arise would not have arisen.


John Vallance: We are now discussing
the present condition of agriculture, and the minister has interjected something with regard to what he proposes to do at some future date, provided certain things happen. I am not concerned with what he proposes to do next year or the year after; I am interested in what he is going to do now. He says that next year, after the Imperial conference, we shall have a marketing board. He, himself, interjects the subject and then he refuses to discuss it because he does not think that it should be discussed prior to the Imperial conference. Well, if we are not going to discuss the marketing board, I should like to know from the minister and from the government what they propose to allow us to discuss in regard to what they have to offer as a means of assisting agriculture in the plight in which it finds itself at the present time. I was very much interested in the talk which the minister has given, if not here, then in some other place. He blames the tariff which has been raised by some other countries against our products going into their markets; he blames other tariffs for preventing us from getting in. But I would point out to the minister that if these countries did this, we retaliated by increasing our tariffs against the imports of other nations, making it that much more difficult for the surplus products of our farms throughout Canada to find markets in the world. Now the minister speaks about the Patterson scheme as it operated in Australia some time ago. I am
Supply-Agriculture

not sure whether it is in operation now, but I know how Canada met it. We met it by applying the dumping duty, so that the butter came into Canada, not at the price at which it was proposed to bring it in, but at the price in the country of origin. If you create a marketing board that operates on the principle laid down in the Patterson scheme, you will find every country applying dumping duties to prevent you doing the very thing which you propose to do. If we are not to have a marketing board this year, let us forget all about it and discuss the problem that is facing us now. Instead of that, the minister says that some day, at some time in the future, we shall have a marketing board; but that is merely a smoke screen in order to enable him to get these estimates through to-night or to-morrow. I remember that in the dying days of last session-in fact it was the last day of the session-when the estimates of the Department of Agriculture came up, we had no opportunity to discuss matters with the minister, and I pointed out to his chief, the Prime Minister, that it was unfair to the minister himself, in the first place, unfair to this house and imfair to the farmers of Canada, that we should be deprived of an opportunity of discussing with the hon. gentleman any proposals he had for the assistance of agriculture. I think it is only fair to him that to-night he should be given an opportunity to say what he will do, not a year or two years from now, but right at this moment. Yesterday I asked the government what they intended to do in connection with the relief measure then under consideration. I was told quite frankly that the government had no policy. Again to-night we find they have no policy; at least none has been enunciated. If the minister, has a policy, I should like to hear him enunciate it and tell us how he proposes to carry it out even with the reduction of thirty-three and a third per cent that is proposed under the estimates at present before the committee.


Robert Weir: I do not think I have anything to add to what I have already said. Our policy is a very definite one. I outlined as clearly" as I could what I thought one of our chief difficulties w^s. It is a matter of judgment whether it would be more advantageous to carry out now the plans that we had suggested, or to have people who are well fitted and representative of agriculture throughout the country to make a special study of the matter' and, if it is thought advisable to do so, have the machinery' ready to appoint this board during next session.

The hon. member has made quite a point of what I have said and what he has read that I have said on different occasions. In that connection I should like to refer to just one statement that the hon. member for South Battleford made earlier in the session, seeing that he has commented on observations that I have made. As reported on page 1363 of Hansard of March 22, 1932, he is reported as saying:
The Minister of Agriculture before the election-he did the same thing after the election - went throughout his constituency and advised some of his followers to hold on to their surplus products because he said prices would soar if the Conservative government were returned to power.
I cannot imagine any statement more devoid of one particle of truth than that made by the hon. member for South Battleford on that particular occasion. When I visited my constituency in January, 1931, one of the times that I have visited it since the last election, I made it perfectly clear to a meeting of my constituents that with the conditions existing in agriculture throughout the world, they had to be prepared to produce bacon at from four to five cents a pound if they were to get a market for it outside of the dominion. In any meetings that I have addressed I have endeavoured to be absolutely fair in any statements I have made regarding agriculture.


John Vallance: In view of what the minister has said, and of the fact that he has nothing further to offer as to how the government proposes to deal with agriculture, with the approval of the committee and in order to expedite matters, I now move that the item of $6,671,100 be passed as the agriculture vote for this year so that the Department of Agriculture may be permitted to carry on.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Thomas McMillan: No; we want to discuss this item by item. It is information we desire. We do not wish to put the minister in a hole. Any questions I have asked have been reasonable, as I think the minister will agree.


Thomas F. Donnelly: I have listened to what the minister has said with regard to the situation in which agriculture finds itself. About a year ago, when he became Minister of Agriculture and before the house met, he had published in several newspapers twelve points that he brought up and what he was going to do for agriculture. I remember referring in the house to those twelve points and telling him what I thought about them.

Supply-A griculture
This year I do not hear him saying anything about them; They have all gone by the board. He has now no policy, and I think my estimate of his policy at that time is just about right. Probably he remembers what my estimate was; I brought it up under point six; it was all answered by number six and that is just what it amounted to. The minister says that the one thing the government has done is to secure the Canadian market for the Canadian farmer. Let me ask the minister: When did the Canadian farmer not have the Canadian market? The trouble was that the Canadian farmer always had the Canadian market, but for many years under Liberal rule they were not able to supply the demands of the Canadian people and some commodities had to be imported. Our farmers at that time did not go in for butter making, chicken raising, egg producing; they went into the most profitable work, that is wheat raising. That was the case until the present government came into power, and then, when conditions went from bad to worse, they had to go into producing eggs and butter, not eating ice cream but making the cream into butter. They did this to try to make a living, and at the present time some of them are making a very poor one.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Some hon. members
may laugh, but if to-day they go into western Canada among the farmers and see them in need, they will not be laughing and considering it a joke. This is no laughing matter among the farmers either of western or of eastern Canada, yet when a farm problem is brought before the house, hon. members think they can sit back and laugh.
I understand the minister during the last election campaign told his constituents that they would have to be prepared to produce bacon for four or five cents a pound. Is that the statement he made?


Robert Weir: Not during the
election. In January, 1931.


Thomas F. Donnelly: My information is that
the people who assisted the minister during the last election told his constituents they were going to get big prices for their bacon, eggs and butter. They did not tell the farmers they would have to produce bacon for four or five cents a pound or eggs for four cents a dozen. The other day I received a letter from a man in my constituency saying that the price of eggs in my town was four cents a dozen. He says that it takes a dozen eggs to buy an apple. This is a question in
mathematics: How many dozen eggs would it take to buy a barrel of apples? That is the condition in which the farmers find themselves in western Canada, and yet our farmer friends opposite laugh and think it is a big joke. Even the hon. member for Long Lake thinks it is a laughing matter. I do not know what his constituents will think when he laughs over matters of this kind.
The situation at the present time is very serious and yet the minister has nothing to offer except that he allows the government at such a time as this to cut the estimates. I notice an item for the administration of the Destructive Insect and Pest Act. In to-day's newspapers we are informed the people in western Canada are threatened with an outbreak of pests in the form of cutworms, yet we are told that this estimate is to be cut down this year. We are troubled at this time with pests, and the greatest of them is the present government. That is what is worrying the farmer now, and he is anxious to get out and cast a vote against them. I implore the government to get the best people they possibly can to fight this pest that is threatening the west.
We are told that the Imperial conference is going to do something for ua, and I hope it is. If it is not a success, it will be disastrous for the present government. It is their last sheet anchor, their last hope. We are hoping it will do something for the farmer. I believe the hon. member for South Battleford is quite right: if the government has nothing for agriculture, what is the use of our sitting here and discussing these estimates?
Mr. MALONEY': I agree entirely with my hon. friend from Willow Bunch when he says that the farmer should be given some chance. As I rode to town on the train this morning I saw on either side of the track farmers working strenuously in the fields, .ploughing with the old horses, and they were not thinking .of a five cents a bushel bonus on wheat, or whether they would receive a dollar or a dollar and a half or two dollars a bushel for their wheat; they were satisfied to go on with their work. I thought that showed the spirit of these men, and was a lesson to every citizen of this country. When I listened to the wailings of my hon. friend from Willow Bunch and my hon. friend from South Battleford, and that grand old patriarch the hon. .member for Lis-gar, and remembered what they did not do for the Canadian farmer when they were in a position to do something, it reminded me of an incident which occurred in the state of Minnesota a few years ago. The authorities of that state decided to put on a "save the forest'
Supply-A qriculture


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Where is it?


Mr. MALONEY:: I would say to -my hon. friends and to the farmers of Canada: Give the present Minister of Agriculture a chance, and he will do something for the farmer, but not with the aid of hon. gentlemen opposite, because they were never known to do anything in 'the line of advancing the interests of the farmer. But the minister will do it, with the aid of the people of Canada, who I believe are absolutely behind him. He will evolve a policy which will be put into effect in this country before many months are over and it will be to the great advantage of the farmers of Canada.


John Livingstone Brown: Will my hon. friend go out and tell the farmers in his constituency that they ought to be satisfied simply to work and not think anything about the prices they get for.their products? That is the kind of farmer he holds up -to us as an example, and that is just the kind of farmer we do not want to see in this -country

farmers satisfied to keep their noses to the grindstone, taking no account of the conditions under which they live, and thinking nothing about the prices they receive for their products.


Peter John Veniot: Not being able to find in the estimates any item covering the salaries of vegetable inspectors and supervisors, I wish to take advantage of the privilege that has been granted to us to discuss agriculture generally to draw the attention of the minister to wha-t I consider to be a grave discrimination in the matter of the dismissal of inspectors and supervisors of vegetables.

I have before me the report on the dismissal of one Conrad Estabrooks, inspector of vegetables, residing at Upper Sackvilde, in the county of Westmorland, New B-runswick. Mr. Conrad Estabrooks was notified- by the department that his services would no longer be required on- account of certain -charges that had been made against him, which charges were investigated without any notification to the accused of the investigation to be held. I have here a copy of a letter signed by R. Weir, dated Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, November 5, 1931, and addressed to R. E. Estabrooks, F, L. Estabrooks & Company, Sackville, N.B., reading as follows:
Dear Sir,-
I am in receipt of your letter of recent date, complaining of our failure to reemploy Mr. D. 0. Estabrooks this fall for potato inspection work.
I have had this matter gone into very carefully by our Mr. Marshall, acting district inspector for the maritime provinces, and our Mr. McIntosh has, I understand, 'written you several letters in this connection.
Mr. Marshall in submitting his report on this case stated, "I find there is a strong feeling in these sections that discrimination has been shown by this inspector. They feel that Inspector Estabrooks

It does not say who feel, but simply "they feel":
-is too young a man to stand the strain of family influence, being closely connected with one of the largest shipping firms in that section."
Under these circumstances -the department felt that there was no option but to decline to have Mr. Estabrooks reappointed this year. It was not a case of his ability as an inspector or otherwise, but rather one of dissatisfaction on the part of shippers coming under the iiispection of this young man, and I feel that the department could not have acted differently in this matter.
Yours very truly,
R. Weir.
This young man asked for the usual investigation and that investigation was refused him. I claim, Mr. Chairman, that where an official is accused of discrimination in the performance of his duty he should if he so desires, be granted an open investigation, and no inspector and no official of the department, or of any department should be sent to hold an ex parte investigation.


Mr. COTNAM:: The same as you dismissed postmasters.


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friend had better keep his tongue between his teeth, if he can possibly do so, or I may have a shot or two for him. I claim it was unjust and unfair, Mr. Chairman, to dismiss an official who asked for an investigation and wanted an opportunity to defend himself.

Supply-A griculture
In rising I said I wished to point out unfair discrimination in matters of this kind as practised by the Department of Agriculture. I have before me a case where on the personal certificate of a member of this house a returned soldier was dismissed in 1931. He was a vegetable inspector at the head of his district. After he was dismissed by order in council based on the certificate of the hon. member representing the county-oh, the minister need not make inquiries about the name; I will give it to him before I am through. I shall give him more than a name.


Robert Weir: I was not inquiring about the name, but I did think my hon. friend's remarks were somewhat remote from dairying. If the hon. member would wait until the proper time I will have the information he wishes.


Mr. YENIOT:: There is no use in the minister trying to raise the point of order that we are dealing with dairying. There is no item in his estimates under which I can bring this matter to the attention of the committee.


Robert Weir: Oh yes, there is.
There is a special item for fruit and vegetables.


Peter John Veniot: I claim the same privilege claimed by other members. The minister was granted an opportunity to talk, and I have as many rights in debate as he has.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: A point of order was raised by the hon. member for Melville, and by unanimous consent of the committee it was decided to discuss the whole agricultural policy.


Peter John Veniot: That is what I am doing. Under the personal certificate of the member representing the county, an order in council was passed dismissing the man to whom I refer. The order of dismissal was sent to his chief; his chief notified him; he claimed he was wrongly dismissed, and asked for an investigation under oath. The department notified him that having been dismissed by order in council he could not have an investigation. I agree that when an order in council is passed there is difficulty in recalling it. But what happened in this case? This man, a returned soldier, applied to the soldiers' organization in this city of Ottawa. On his behalf they took the matter up, and after considerable fighting, and pressure brought to bear, the minister notified this man that he would have an investigation, and accordingly an investigation was granted. My point is this: Why
was an investigation granted to a man dismissed by order in council, and refused a man who was dismissed or laid off only by order of the minister? There was no order in council dismissing Estabrooks. I do not know whether we should use the common slang expression, but when the pressure was brought to bear I am wondering whether the minister got cold feet and allowed himself in one case to be influenced by the pressure, but in another case refused an investigation. I should like to go a little further with this latter case.


An hon. MEMBER:: What was the name?


Peter John Veniot: The name of the man who was dismissed is Charles D. Smith.


An hon. MEMBER:: A brother of ike member?


Peter John Veniot: Not that I know of.


Mr. SPOTTON:: Is he married or single?


Peter John Veniot: An investigation took place, and I am going to place on Hansard some of the evidence taken. Mr. Ronald E. Smith was the first witness called, and under oath he testified as follows:
I live at East Florenceville. I am a labourer. I attended a meeting called by the Liberal party at Andover in 1930. That meeting was called by the Liberal party asking Liberal supporters and friends of the Liberal party to attend. I attended the meeting at the request of the Hon. B. F. Smith. He requested me to see what the people at the meeting had to say. It was also for the purpose of seeing what prominent men were there. I saw Charles TK Smith, supervisor of potato inspectors there. 1 was quite near to him. There could be no mistake on my part about his identity. I came back to East Florenceville and reported to Mr. B. F. Smith. I don't know if he took any active part in the meeting.
Later this, man was cross-examined by Mr. Money, the lawyer for the accused Charles D. Smith. Under,cross-examination the witness said:
I am a nephew of the Hon. B. F. Smith. I think it was the morning of the convention that Mr. Smith told me to go there. I live with Hon. B. F. Smith. I drove in. George SmitVs car there that day. He is my cousin and B. F. Smith's son.
Then, when cross-examined ' by Mr. B. F Smith, the member, he went on to reiterate that he saw this man there again. I may say Mr. George E. Smith also swore he saw Mr. Charles D. Smith at Andover on that date.
Now we have the evidence of Mr. Charles D. Smith, the accused:
I live at the parish of Perth, Victoria county. I am the C. D. Smith about whose dismissal this investigation is being held. I was not Jiresent at the convention at Andover as claimed
Supply-Agriculture

by Ronald E. Smith. Since 1919 I have taken no part in politics, other than going to the polls and easting my ballot. I have never engaged in any partisan work in any election, local or federal, since 1919. Since 1919, I have never contributed to any party funds, Liberal or Conservative. I have never received or in any way dealt with any money for any party funds. I have known Ronald E. Smith for a few years. I don't know of any person in Victoria of Carleton county who resembles me in appearance. June 30, 1930, I went from Perth to Hillsdale, Grand Falls and return to Perth. About seventy to seventy-five miles the round trip. I went by auto. July 1st, Perth to Plaster Rock and return, about fifty-five miles round trip. July 2nd, Perth to Aroostock Junction, Kilburn and return about twenty-seven or twenty-eight miles round trip. Usually left in the morning and went to Aroostock and came back for dinner. Made the other trip in the afternoon. July 3rd, I went from Perth to Centreville and Woodstock. Stayed in Woodstock all night.
I have never talked to any person advising them to vote one way or another. I have advised government employees to leave politics alone. Have advised men working under me that they belonged to the civil service and were not supposed to take any part in politics. The only political meeting I have attended since 1919 was the nomination day proceedings in the summer of 1930 for the provincial election at Andover.
When both parties were together.
I stood in the doorway and listened to Mr. White talk. I was there possibly fifteen minutes. Then I went over to the office. On the platform with Mr. White were Mr. Pirie, C. H. Elliott, Mr. Niles. I don't remember who the chairman was.
Then he is cross-examined by Mr. B. F. Smith on the method of recommending subinspectors for the inspection of potatoes and jo on. He again claims he took no part in politics and denies having stated to Mr. Smith that he was in Andover at such and such a date.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Inasmuch as the hon. member read the cross-examination of another witness, will he be good enough to read the cross-examination of this witness with respect to his not being at Andover on that day?


Peter John Veniot: I will do so, because I am always pleased to have my hon. friend's name put on Hansard.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: We all
recognize your fairness.


Peter John Veniot: Here is the cross-examination by Mr. B. P. Smith:
I was appointed potato inspector in the year 1922. I was appointed supervising inspector or senior about four years ago. I was not continually at this work until appointed supervisor. In the appointment of potato inspectors they were selected and then made application on
[Mr. Veniot.l
printed forms. I don't know by whom they were selected. Those applications bearing the name of the applicant went before an examining board. I was a member of the examining board.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Oh, oh.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman laughs. What has that got to do with it?
The other members were Mr. Vroom, Gallagher (C.F.), Mr. Hicks. I don't know how many meetings that board held. They held some. I don't know that every application came before that board, but we dealt with what applications were sent us. Every application that went to the department was not necessarily signed by me. The department may have made appointments without my signature as a member of the board. There were somewhere about thirty when all were working. That would be in a rush season. There were about twenty in the two counties of Victoria and Carleton.
Q. Among the twenty inspectors who were working under you in Victoria and Carleton, did you approve of one who was recommended by a Conservative? And prior to the 1930 election? Or in 1930 up to the time of your dismissal ?
A. I don't know who recommended these men. T know every applicant has to be recommended by somebody. I would not know who recommended these men unless it was on the application. I can point to one Conservative whose application was favourably considered, Coles Crouse of Upper Woodstock. I don't know who recommended him. I don't know whether it w'as Charles Clarke who recommended him. Usually three present at our meetings. Mr. Vroom, Mr. Gallagher and myself held our meetings at the most central place according to where the applications came from. I have no records of these meetings. I do not think we held any at Florenceville. I don't know about Hartland or Bath. We held some at Perth, I don't know how many. I don't think we held a board meeting at Perth. The district inspector kept all records. I can't remember that Mr. Hicks attended any meetings. Mr. Vroom attended them all. I cannot say that I attended them all. They never sent me an application to sign after a meeting. Qualifications: knowledge of the potato business; neatness in handwriting; ability to carry on as an inspector. I don't know the political belief of applicants.
Q. What member of the board defined the political status of an applicant?
A. No one that I know of. Politics did not enter into it with me.
Q. Don't you think it significant that out of twenty inspectors under you in this constituency not one was accepted that was recommended by a Conservative?
A. I can name one inspector who was recommended by a Conservative. Allie Shaw. I cannot remember whether the application of Kenneth Squires, a returned man from Upper Carleton county came before me. I don't know whether Squires was appointed or not. I favoured all returned men whose applications came before me. I don't know whether Squire's application is at Ottawa with my name on it as rejecting him. I did not tell you-

Supply-Agriculture
That is B. F. Smith.
1. did not tell you that I attended the Andover Liberal convention referred to by Ronald E. Smith. I didn't tell you that I was at that Liberal convention for a short time. I didn't tell you I was at that convention between trains. 1 was in Perth on the day of that convention.
For the information of the committee I may say that Perth is right across the river from Andover.
If I was at Perth I could have attended that convention. The examining board classifies applicants as to their fitness and qualifications to perform their duties. The board rates the applicant and in order to be accepted he must rate 70 so far as I know. Men rated over 70 by us have been rejected by the department.
I have recommended men apart from rating them. I don't know how many. I have never written a recommendation on the back of an application nor have I ever written suggesting rejection.
I did tell Mr. B. F. Smith that I attended the local nomination day convention in 1930.
The applications came to our board from Ottawa.
That is the end of this.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: Where is the cheering?
What is the cause of its absence? Is it that a returned soldier has been ruthlessly thrown down under such an examination? Here is further evidence:
William White, Sworn:
I was a potato inspector under C. D. Smith for four years.
Q. Did Mr. C. D. Smith ever talk politics with you ?	.
A. No. I don't think he ever did. Before the last federal election he advised me to take no part in politics. We were not supposed to do so. The day of the federal Liberal convention at Andover, 1930, he told me this in his own office. I was present at that convention. After the convention he was in his office working at the desk. That would be about four o'clock.
I didn't see him at the convention. I won't swear he was not there.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Mr. Chairman, I think it is very unfair that the time of the committee should be taken up with a matter that is entirely out of order.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman asked
me to read this evidence, and I am simply complying with his request. Now he says it is out of order.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member for Gloucester has taken occasion irregularly to [DOT] read the direct evidence of WTlliam White without reading the cross-examination.


John Vallance: There is no point of
order there.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read the whole
thing.


Peter John Veniot: I have read everything
that Mr. William White said on direct examination and cross-examination. In order to prove it to the house I will repeat it.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I again
raise a point of order. The hon. gentleman has not read what Mr. White said under crossexamination.


Peter John Veniot: I have here the evidence of Mr. White on these two sheets, and I have read every word of evidence under the name of White on these two sheets.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the whole question is out of order.


Peter John Veniot: If the hon. gentleman himself was in order, Mr. Chairman, he would not have asked me to read the evidence. Now, having read it, he says it is out of order.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are in order.


Peter John Veniot: I am in perfect order.
Now he finds the shoe pinches he wants the evidence expunged from the record on the ground that it is out of order.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman has made a statement that is not in accordance with the facts. He knows very well that the only reason I rose to a point of order was because he was not doing what I asked him to do; he did not read the crossexamination of Mr. White. He would not do that, and I regret that the chairman did not insist that he do it. He has not done it yeb-


Peter John Veniot: Is this a question of
privilege? I rise to a point of order now.


Martin James Maloney: The hon. member for Gloucester, at the request of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, proceeded to read the evidence and the cross-examination.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I shall be glad to hear it.


Peter John Veniot: I read it. I do not intend to pay any more attention to the remarks or interruptions of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton. Hansard tomorrow will show whether or not I read all that I should have read. Now I intend to go a little further. I feel that the minister

Supply-Agriculture


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Mr. Chairman-


Peter John Veniot: If my hon. friend will let the Minister of Agriculture-


Benjamin Franklin Smith: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman; I was advised by you a moment ago that the hon. gentleman had proceeded to read the crossexamination of Mr. William White. I did not hear it; it has not been read.


Peter John Veniot: As much as I should like to comply with the request of the hon. gentleman, I decline to take up the time of the .committee in reading again what I have .already read. The hon. member can read it in the morning, if his eyesight is good enough after he has spent the rest of the evening thinking over his actions in connection with this matter. The hon. gentleman, a member of this house, attended investigations held for the purpose of dismissing, returned soldiers, and he conducted the investigation as a lawyer and a cross-examiner. I say, Mr. Chairman, that this seems pretty small potatoes.
In view of what I have stated to-night, especially with regard to Estabrooks and the discrimination shown, will the minister reopen the Estabrooks case? It is not that I want him restored to his .position; I want his character cleared. He has a right to have an investigation to which he can bring his witnesses, where those accusing him will have to appear under oath and state their case face to face with the man they accuse. We are not living in Russia; we are in a free country, where the law says every man is innocent until he is proved guilty. The Minister of Agriculture has refused this man British justice and fair play. He asked for an investigation, blit the minister would not grant his request; he was given an exparte investigation. I do not want Estabrooks restored; after such treatment he would not continue under this administration, but I do ask that he be given an opportunity to wipe from his character the blemish placed upon it by this exparte investigation. I think to-night, before these estimates go through, the minister should state to this committee that Estabrooks will have an open investigation.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I think in fairness to myself, while I regret to take up the time of the committee on a matter which is entirely irrelevant, I should say a word. The hon. member for Gloucester has made a number of statements which might leave a wrong impression with regard to the matter which he has been discussing. In the first

place let me refer to Mi' Charles D. Smith, to whom my -hon. friend referred. Mr. Smith lives in my own constituency, and he -was appointed chief potato inspector for the province of New Brunswick, with headquarters at Madawaska. While he was a member of the examining board and had to -pass upon the different applicants for positions, he never recommended one man who was not a Liberal for appointment as potato inspector. The men *whose names were given by my hon. friend from Gloucester were recommended by Liberals and not by Conservatives; that is the reason they received the appointment. In my own constituency there was only one Conservative out of twenty.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: That is enough.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I must confess that during the regime of hon. gentlemen opposite that seemed to be their idea of what was enough. My hon. friend went further and tried to make it appear to this committee that Mr. Charles Smith was not a political partisan. The one fact I have stated is the most convincing argument that could be adduced to show that Mr. Smith was a political partisan, since he did not give a single Tory an appointment during the years he was chief inspector. In the second place Mr. Charles Smith, notwithstanding what he said on that examination, did tell me not once but on two different occasions that he attended the Liberal convention at Andover.


Peter John Veniot: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Will the hon. gentleman take his seat?


Martin James Maloney: State your point of order.


Peter John Veniot: Not while the -hon. gentleman is standing. The point of order is this: I have read the oath taken by Mr. Smith before the commissioner, and I have read his replies to the questions of Mr. B. F. Smith,. in which he denies-


Martin James Maloney: What is your point of order?


Peter John Veniot: My point of order is that * the hon. gentleman, after the investigation has taken place and the report has been acted upon, has no- right to get up in this committee and attempt to contradict evidence .which was given while the hon. member was present and did not take an oath.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I think I have a perfect right to state what was said, to me personally.

Supply-A griculture
2S05


Peter John Veniot: Why did you not take the oath? You did not dare give evidence under oath.


Mr. SMITH (VictoriaJCarleton):: I can say what was said to me personally. That statement, Mr. Chairman, and the evidence of the different witnesses who appeared before that investigator, were heard under oath. Now my hon. friend from Gloucester tries to contradict the evidence which was given before the commissioner, and seeks to suggest that the commissioner who held that investigation did something wrong. That investigator made his report to the department; the report was based upon the facts as he heard them and upon the evidence of the different witnesses who came before him. I submit that it is Entirely out of order and absolutely unfair for the hon. member for Gloucester to come before this committee and try to make it appear that the investigator who heard the evidence under oath was guilty of sending to the department at Ottawa a wrong conclusion with regard to the evidence given before him.
So far as the appointment of potato inspectors is concerned, I am very much surprised that the hon. member for Gloucester should try to make it appear that he has been so fair in connection with certain appointments in the county of Carleton. He knows-and it is on record in the department at Ottawa to-day-that he himself came from that province while a minister and did his utmost to prevent certain men being appointed as potato inspectors, although they were perfectly qualified. He used his influence as a minister of the crown to stop the appointment of those men when he knew absolutely that they were fully qualified and were supported by the recommendation of men who ought to have known what their qualifications were. He was guilty of that, and he cannot deny it; yet he stands up here and tries to justify himself before this committee and before the country, endeavouring to make it appear that he was absolutely impartial in the matter of appointments and dismissals.


Mr. MULLINS:: I wonder what the farmers of western Canada would think of this fiasco. The farmers of the west, are struggling for existence, and yet hon. gentlemen will stand up opposite and make such speeches as we have been hearing. Western Canada is struggling under a very heavy burden at the present time, and we have to listen to such speeches in this house. No wonder agriculture finds itself in its present condition.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have talked about agriculture being the basic industry of the west. Yes, it is; but when the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, the most important estimates which we have to consider, come before the house, why do they not permit us to go ahead and make some progress with them? I remember when the hon. member, my neighbour from Melville, was getting his estimates through there was no such obstruction as we are witnessing now. I have here a copy of the estimates for 1929 and I find that in the Department of Agriculture the hon. gentleman had 1,962 employees, hog graders and inspectors of all kinds. He had all sorts of graders grading the farmers of western Canada, and professors of one kind and another chasing beetles and Hies all over the country. Why, in the Fort Garry hotel there were twelve of them at one time, trying to find how many whiskers were on barley, and this cost the country all sorts of money. In 1929 it cost $7,201,566 to run the Department of Agriculture, and in 1930 it had increased to $9,400,000. I wonder what benefit the farmers of western Canada derived from that expenditure. Certainly none of it was devoted to that basic industry known as the live stock business; we received no consideration at the hands of the then Minister of Agriculture. Indeed, he abolished the policy of pure bred sires and catered to southern Saskatchewan, putting those settlers on land which it was not possible to farm. It was not farming land. As a matter of fact, a few years ago they had watering carts trying to water the grain, and the hon. gentleman should have known that before he undertook to put settlers in there.
I have no objection to wheat, but I must say that I have listened to idiscussions about wheat before the committee on agriculture, day after day, when not a word was said in reference to the live stock industry, the most important part, of agriculture. That branch of agriculture has never had a friend; all down through the years, from 1921 to the present time, it has been friendless. Why, when the gentleman who was Minister of Railways was here he was at the head of a corporation in Winnipeg known as the United Grain Growers, and he said to the farmers of western Canada, "Bring on your cattle; ship them in to us; rve are your friends and we will look after you". Mr. Chairman, I have stood in the stockyards and have seen the operations going on there. They built a ring at the weigh scales and they put the farmer on a pedestal which they had erected, where he could look down at what was going on but he did not
2S06
Supply-Agriculture

know what was actually taking place. That is in evidence to-day. Any man who goes to the stockyards will see that pedestal which they put up there, on which the farmer stood, so that he could not hear what was going on when his cattle were going on the scales at less money then they would sell in the open market. I often wondered how long that condition would continue. 1 have a certificate here for a certain lot of cattle that went through in this way. They took the cattle from the farmers of the west at from one to two and three cents a pound less than their value. That was going on all the time under the ex-Miniister of Agriculture; there is no doubt about it. In the stockyards they put up a sign on the wall, "The organized farmer in business". I wondered whether he was in business. After they had milked him dry, so to speak, he went out of business.
The late minister instituted a grading system in the west which was the worst system ever adopted against the farmers in that part of the country, for it allowed the packers the privilege of grading hogs and deriving the benefit therefrom. I say, let the farmer go with his pen of hogs, or with his live stock, and sell them. Don't take the initiative away from him. The farmer does not need any custodian; any time I ever came in contact with him he was able to sell his cattle right in his field. Now he has to send them in to some custodian, under the Live Stock Act which was passed by the late Minister of Agriculture. I am sorry to have to speak this way, but it is my duty to do all I can to assist the farmer. I travelled all the way to Winnipeg to try to obtain a lower rate for cattle, under the minister's Petersen commission, thinking that it was some good. But what happened? I ask, was there ever a fiasco perpetrated upon the people of this country comparable to that Petersen commission? I regret the necessity of naming a gentleman who is dead-he died opposite the parliament building-but I am bound to say that in my opinion it was never intended that there should be a lower rate for the farmers of the west.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: May I ask the hon. gentleman just one question, for information?


Henry Alfred Mullins: The hon. member will have all the time he wants after I am through. I have here a few newspaper clippings, showing how anxious the late Minister of Agriculture was to do something for the live stock men of the west. Here is one: "Expects cut in freight rates for cattle"; this is from an article that appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune. Another one declares that the government is "seeking means of reducing ocean rates on cattle".

Every time the hon. gentleman went to the west these articles would appear in the paper under big headlines, but nothing was done. Another one reads, "Motherwell outlines way to force reduction in Atlantic freight rates". Now the hon. the Minister of Agriculture has secured a freight rate of $10.80 for young steers to the old country. The only market that Canada has is the British market. This circular which I hold in my hand has been travelling all over the west during his term of office in an endeavour to get our young steers into the United States where they are fattened and killed, the beef being shipped back into Canada. We are bringing into Canada in the form of canned meats millions of pounds, equal to 50,000 cattle yearly. We are bringing in piekled shoulders and hams from the United States and thus ruining our own hog and beef industry. If we do not stop this sort of thing, prices will be lowered. There is a way out of this situation and I hope the minister will take up the question when the Imperial conference is sitting here.
There are some good farmers on the other side of the house and I ask them: Why do they sit back and let the fiasco continue that we have had over there? I do not like it and I am sure they do not.
Agriculture is an important item before the house and we should get down to business. Let us give the minister a chance to do something. I know he is trying to do his best for the men of western Canada in regard to wheat, cattle, hogs and every other product of the farm. All I can say is that if the farmer is not successful God help Canada.


Robert Weir: In reply to the question of the hon. member for Gloucester, I have not the detailed information before me because we are dealing with item 39, but from what the hon. member has said and as far as my memory serves me, this gentleman, Mr. Estabrooks, who was a temporary, seasonal employee, a vegetable inspector, was not reengaged because it was felt by his superior officers-this is the reason given-that on account of his supposed partiality, it would not be in the interests of the potato industry to reappoint him. If I recollect aright, it was after that the matter was brought to my attention and I gave it very careful consideration. The information that I received forced me to the conclusion that there was no room for two opinions.
As regards the next man, Mr. Smith, from what has been read, this is a different case entirely. It is one of political partisanship, not of inefficiency. Mr. Smith was also a vegetable inspector, and on a letter from a

Supply-Agriculture
member of the house saying that of his personal knowledge he knew this man was guilty of political partisanship, the course was taken by my officers that I believe has always been taken in the past on such a letter or on such information being forthcoming; that is, an order in council was passed dismissing him from his position. In spite of the fact that this has been customary in the past, when sufficient information was brought to my attention that I felt I might be warranted, in all fairness, especially as it was a case of political partisanship, in granting an investigation, I did so.


Peter John Veniot: What about the personal
certificate of the hon. member?


Robert Weir: Just a minute. The procedure that was followed is that which has always been followed in connection with these cases.


Peter John Veniot: I think I should be given an opportunity of saying a word or two in reply to the minister. In regard to the Estabrooks case, my complaint is that Estabrooks was charged with discrimination, and the report so shows. This is from Mr. McIntosh:
Regarding inquiries re complaint of discrimination-[DOT]
There was a definite charge of discrimination.
-I might advise that the investigation was conducted.
How was the investigation conducted? This man was not notified. It was an ex parte investigationhe was given no chance to defend himself. It was a case of hanging the criminal and trying him afterwards. Yet the Minister of Agriculture last session and this says that he does not know of any partisanship.


Robert Weir: Was that partisanship in that connection?


Peter John Veniot: Yes. Partisanship must have directed the reports received from Sackville, not from potato shippers but from political wire pullers. That is the reason this investigation was held ex parte. What I ask is this: Give this man a chance to clear his character. He has been charged with lack of attention to duty, of discriminating in the inspection of potatoes, because his uncle and I think his father were themselves in the potato business and he was not inspecting their potatoes. I again appeal to the minister to grant this man an investigation-not to restore him to his position, but to give him an opportunity of clearing his character against the charge of discrimination in the performance of his duties. That is all I ask, and I should like to know
from the minister to-night whether he will examine the record to-morrow or later on, and, if he finds what I state to be true: that a charge of discrimination was made; that it was investigated ex parte and that the man was given no opportunity to defend himself, whether the minister will reopen the investigation so as to give this man an opportunity of defending his character.


Robert Weir: My information is that this was absolutely a case of inefficiency.


Peter John Veniot: But this document in the minister's own file speaks of a charge of discrimination.


Robert Weir: Discrimination in
duty, which is inefficiency. I have given the matter every consideration that I feel it can be given, but so that there may be no possible doubt as to any unfairness in connection with it, I shall be only too glad to give it further consideration.


John Vallance: The minister quoted
from a speech which I made in the house on March 22 as follows:
The Minister of Agriculture before the election-he did the same thing after the election - went throughout his constituency and advised some of his followers to hold on to their surplus products because he said prices would soar if the Conservative government were returned to power.
The only thing I am sorry about is that the minister did not read the whole speech and take cognizance of what I said in it. What I was dealing with at that time was the very subject we are dealing with to-night, namely the marketing of the surplus products, not only of western Canada but of the whole dominion. What has the government done in regard to this subject? During the last election campaign they promised the farmers, not only of the west but of the whole country, that if they were elected they would do certain things; they would blast their way into new markets. The present Prime Minister went from one end of the country to the other making those promises to the farmers. What did the government do, not at the special, but at the first regular session of parliament? They sent to the committee on agriculture a certain order of reference asking them to investigate and to report to the house on the marketing problems of Canada. What report did that committee bring in? May I again remind the house that concurrence in that report has never been moved. The closing paragraph of it was as follows:
In view of the situation as it presented itself to the committee it is not considered advisable to make any recommendation. Your committee,
Supply-Agriculture

however, submit that the evidence submitted to it might be usefully studied by members of the house.
That was the only contribution to a solution that was made by this government the first year they were in office. Now, in 1932, what is their suggestion for the relief of agriculture? The minister holds up what I designated before as a smoke screen of something he proposes to do at some future date, but he does not intend to discuss it now. This is what we are interested in; this is why we are trying to object to the thirty-three and a third per cent reduction in the estimates, because we realize it is utterly impossible for this, or, for that matter, any other government to bring about or to attempt to bring about the fulfilment of the promises they gave to the people of Canada during the last election. So I would advise the minister in his spare moments to read the speech that I delivered in this house on March 22 last. The criticism I made then was in the same spirit that actuates me now-I am acting in the very best of faith, hoping to help the minister. I went so far to-night to try to help him as to move that these estimates totalling six million dollars odd be voted now en bloc because of his lack of knowledge as to what he proposed to do with the money, but he would not accept the motion.


Thomas F. Donnelly: I listened to what the hon. member for South Renfrew and the hon. member for Marquette said a few moments ago with regard to the Minister of Agriculture. They pleaded with us to give the minister a chance, trying to leave the impression that we were not giving him fair play. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that for the past two years we on this side of the house and the people of Canada have been giving the minister a chance to carry on and evolve his policy and tell us what he is going to do, but we are still waiting to learn what his policy is, and it is no wonder that we on this side and the people of the country are beginning to lose faith in anything that the minister and this government are going to do for the farmers.


Mr. GOTT:: Not the country.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Yes, the country.


Eccles James Gott: What about Athabaska?


Thomas F. Donnelly: I want to say this to
the hon. member and to the committee. We ask the minister, what is your policy with regard to dairying? Have you any policy? If the minister says that he has no policy with regard to dairying, is it any wonder that we and the public are losing confidence in

him? All I have to do to show that the people are losing confidence in him is to quote from a farm paper that I have under my hand. The writer of this article, after the last election when my hon. friend was appointed Minister of Agriculture, was one of his greatest supporters. Here was a man, he said, who was a soldier, a university graduate, a scholar, a mathematician and farmer. He prophesied a great future for him as Minister of Agriculture, and thought that the country was lucky to have him.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas F. Donnelly: But what does this
same man say to-day? Listen to this:
Weir, of Saskatchewan, is one of the major di sappointments.
I don't hear any cheers now.
Scholar, mathematician, soldier, farmer, he came to the portfolio of agriculture with no political past, every prospect of great success. Bis prestige grew steadily until the session of 1931.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I have ruled many
times that according to rule 306 it is not parliamentary to quote the opinions of outsiders in newspapers about the proceedings in the house. I will read the rule again:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to,-or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.


Thomas F. Donnelly: What has the article
I am quoting to do with the proceedings of the house? In the first place, Mr. Chairman, this is not a newspaper nor is it written by a newspaper correspondent. This is a magazine. In the second place, it has nothing whatever to do with the proceedings of the house. To continue the quotation:
His prestige grew steadily until the session of 1931, and never before in Canadian political history have Canning's wise words on reputations in parliament been more * completely vindicated. Canning said that many a great reputation in the world of business, law, medicine, scholarship, had been snuffed out like a candle on the threshold of the House of Commons. And our commons has certainly written Weir down from a party asset to a liability.
That is the very same man who just after the election and the appointment of the minister to the portfolio of agriculture praised him to the skies.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is he?


Thomas F. Donnelly: The writer of this
article is Richard Churchill, and he is writing in the Country Guide of April, 1932.

Supply-Agriculture


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: Where is it printed?


Thomas F. Donnelly: I do not know whether it is at Long Lake or where it is. I want to repeat that the country is looking for a policy from this government with respect to agriculture. They want to know what this government intends to do for the dairy industry, and again I ask the minister: Has he any policy with regard to the dairy industry, or has he not?


Mr. PORTBOUS:: In view of the fact that much reference has been made to, and much time taken up in discussing, the lack of policy of the present administration, I would ask the present Minister of Agriculture or the former Minister of Agriculture or the hon. member for Willow Bunch, what part of the agriculture policy of the former administration has been abandoned since this government came into power?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Like many other members of the house-


Victor Clarence Porteous: I should like an answer to my question, Mr. Chairman.


Eccles James Gott: It cannot be answered.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Like many other members of the house I have been listening in vain to receive a word of encouragement from the Minister of Agriculture. Some few days ago when we were debating in this house the measure for unemployment and farm relief, I put some questions to the hon. Minister of Labour regarding seed grain and asked him if under that measure farmers who needed it would be allowed to obtain seed grain. I have also written to the hon. Minister of Agriculture with respect to the matter, and I received a reply from him dated May 2, 1932, reading as follows:
There is no appropriation or authority making provision for the purchase or distribution of seed grain to farmers in any province in Canada. This is entirely a provincial responsibility, and I would suggest that you advise your constituent to take this matter up with the municipal authorities or the provincial government, who, I feel sure, will see to it that they are sufficiently provided for.
Yours very truly,
R. Weir.
That answer is not satisfactory to me, Mr. Chairman, nor to the people I represent nor to the people of the province of Quebec. This government is simply passing the buck and saying to the province of Quebec: You do the best you can to help the farmers of your own province. Those members who have been in this house for a number of years know that 41761-177
time and again the farmers of western Canada have received advances and assistance from the federal government in purchasing seed grain when they were in dire necessity. I remember also that not so long ago, about the year 1924, when there was a lack of crop in the district that I represent in this house, the Minister of Agriculture in the government of that day (Mr. Motherwell) found ways and means whereby the people of my county and of the district that was stricken at that time were provided with seed grain in the spring, through the efforts of the federal Department of Agriculture in cooperation with the provincial government. It was due to the services of the seed branch under the direction of Mr. Clark that seed grains were provided for the people in my county The minister now states to me in a letter that there is no way in which the people of the province of Quebec can be helped, when they are in need of seed grain. There is no chance for the people of that province to get assistance from this government, despite the fact that in past years under other governments we were able to obtain help. This evening we were told that- the government has no agricultural policy. I believe that statement is true, and with that in mind I shall keep the minister's letter and show it to the people of my constituency so that everybody may know that the government has no agricultural policy. They may have some thought for their friends in the west, but certainly they care not for the people in the east, and more especially those of the province of Quebec.
While I am on my feet there is another matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the minister. Although we have received promises 'from the present administration, and more especially from the minister whose estimates are under discussion, we find very often that instead of constructive work there is more often destructive work in governmental departments. For instance in the constituency I have the honour to represent within the last six years a gentleman named Paul Langlois had been appointed promoter of sheep and swine raising. This gentleman has done good work, and was retained in office until last year. For no good reason at all, except for reasons of political patronage and advantage, he was promoted to another district on the south shore of the river St. Lawrence. In his place Mr. Latulippe was appointed. Apparently the minister, or his official Mr. MacMillan, claimed that this gentleman had qualifications sufficient to entitle him to succeed Mr. REVISED EDITION
Supply-A griculture

Langlois. What took place was this: For some years previously Mr. Latulippe had been employed by the government of the province of Quebec as promoter of agriculture in the constituency of Charlevoix-Saguenay. He was dismissed by the provincial legislature because of incompetency, and the fact that he was not able to show satisfactory results in his district. Since this government has taken office, Mr. Latulippe has been given the post of sheep and swine promoter in my constituency.
I have before me a letter from Mr. A. A. MacMillan, chief of the sheep and swine division, addressed to Mr. Edgar Rochette, a member of the Quebec legislature. In that letter Mr. MacMillan states that Mr. Latulippe was highly recommended by officials of the provincial Department of Agriculture, and by other men holding important positions in agricultural circles of the province of Quebec. I have in my hand other letters concerning the appointment of this man. It would appear that Mr. Narcisse Savoie, chief agriculturist in the Quebec Department of Agriculture, wrote Mr. A. A. MacMillan on February 4, 1932, as follows:
As I said in our interview, his presence as sheep and swine promoter in Charlevoix and Montmorency counties is very embarrassing for our men, and we are very perplexed as to the attitude we should adopt towards him. Practically all the parish priests and the majority of the farmers look at him with rather bad dispositions. and we really don't know how good work could be done in such conditions, as a close cooperation between the provincial and the federal employees and the parish priests is necessary to get success.
I should like to know how this government, which is pledged to the promotion and development of agriculture in all parts of Canada, can help the people of Canada to get back on their feet by actions such as I have described. I have received many complaints from the people in my constituency, and they are unanimous in the view that the gentleman who has been appointed by the Civil Service Commission to replace Mr. Langlois will not and cannot make a success of his job because while in the employ of the provincial government he proved a failure.
After Mr. Latulippe left the employ of the provincial government he went into business for himself at Murray Bay. He made a failure of the business, made 'an assignment, and proceedings were taken against him. The appointment of the sheep and swine promoter in the constituency of Charlevoix-Saguenay was made from a political point of view. During the last election campaign Mr. Latulippe was nothing more than a big drummer, a chief political henchman, carrying all

the big guns and working up public meetings in an election campaign which was notorious throughout the province. The people in Charlevoix-Saguenay cannot be expected to go to that gentleman, meet with him and discuss matters in a fair and legitimate manner when most of them know that during the last election campaign he was their opponent. I have written the minister in this connection and only to-day received a reply telling me that Mr. Langlois had been promoted. He was a worthy official, and I am glad his promotion has become effective. I cannot, however, see any reason for moving him, unless it was to find a job for Mr. Latulippe, who, for reasons I have mentioned should not have been appointed.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Mr. Chairman, I feel
that federal and provincial departments of agriculture and agriculture schools have been stressing production too much. If it has not been true in the past, the fact is to-day that production is not the problem with which agriculture is faced. There is no difficulty in producing sufficient quantities of agricultural products. If the Department of Agriculture is to serve the agricultural industry it must make a sharp swing away from the promotion of production as its chief activity to that of, the cooperative marketing and the processing of farm products. In short, we may say that the business of the Department of Agriculture is to do all it can to meet the economic conditions which the farmer is facing.
At the moment I feel a keen interest in the processing of agricultural products, and I know the minister has been sympathetic concerning the venture about which I am going to speak. In Barrie, Ontario, we have been trying to establish an abattoir for the processing of pork, but we are meeting with very great difficulties. Od/dly enough the banks closed the Barrie abattoir when the overdraft was lower than it had been for some months. The minister well knows the details. I dare say the very close interlocking directorates between banks and abattoirs often makes it impossible for the minister, who himself is sympathetic towards the agriculturist, to do the thing that needs to be done. Is the federal Department of Agriculture considering assistance to experimental stations in processing? It does seem to me that that is exactly what the Barrie station is. The experiment is not being carried on by the government, but by farmers, and they are very hard hit by economic conditions this year. If this plant goes down each producer will sustain a heavy loss. There is no reason

Supply-Agriculture
why it should go down. Yet I do think those farmers stand in great need of a long term loan at a low rate of interest. The minister may say to me that the government is hard pressed for money. In reply, may I say to him that it does seem to me altogether nonsensical to put people back on the land to produce more farm products, for the very fact that at the moment we have more products than can be marketed. I do feel if some of the energy that is being devoted by the government to this back to the land movement was directed to making successful great cooperative ventures and helping these experimental stations in processing, it would be a much sounder agricultural policy. I have no faith at all in the back to the land movement. There is no sense in placing people on the land-people who possibly have very little experience and very little money-while those who have experience and money are being driven off the land. May I again press the minister for some reply in regard not only to the situation of the processing plant in Barrie but to other processing plants which undoubtedly will come out of this present depression. What will be the attitude of the federal government in regard to them?


Robert Weir: The matter has
ibeen given .consideration, but no definite action has been taken yet. It is felt that it is really the work of the provinces rather than of the dominion. For some time we have been discussing with the provinces what assistance could best be given. Similar enterprises have been started, and, I believe, are working out successfully, in the west without any assistance.


Mr. GOBEIL:: I am pleased that the hon. member for Chanlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Cas-grain) brought up the question of seed grain, for I am very much interested in it myself. I have received several letters from municipalities in my county asking for seed grain. It is quite true, I believe, that the citizens of the province of Quebec are under the impression that they are not getting at the hands of the government the same treatment as the other provinces are getting.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Hear, hear.


Samuel Gobeil: They are under that impression, rightly or wrongly. I have before me Le Canada of Friday the 6th of May, in which it is stated that last year the Department of Agriculture of Quebec wrote to the federal department asking for aid1 for their farmers, but without success! Undoubtedly several
41761-177 J
members of the provincial government are trying to give the citizens of Quebec the impression that the western provinces are receiving special treatment at the hands of this government. As I wanted to give the parties who wrote me correct information, I went to Mr. Clark, the commissioner of that particular branch, and asked of him if there was a law that applied to the western provinces only. He infonmed me there was none. He added there was a time before the natural resources were transferred to the western provinces when the federal government supplied1 seed grain to the settlers, but since the transfer the western provinces have received no special treatment. He also told me that Quebec and Ontario never took advantage of the law as the western provinces have done, but that the law is the same for all the provinces. He added, "I imagine if asked by Quebec or Ontario to loan money or to guarantee a loan to buy seed grain for the farmers of those two provinces the federal government no doubt would do the same as it is doing for the western provinces, if such action were found necessary." So I should like the Minister of Agriculture, or perhaps the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), to make a clear declaration to the committee so that there will be no more misunderstanding in the province of Quebec with respect ta this matter.


Robert Weir: In connection with seed grain, if any province communicates with the federal government stating that it is not in a position financially to carry on any of its governmental work, the matter is considered and if deemed advisable money is advanced to the province as a loan only, the province being responsible for repayment. The province is responsible for getting seed grain. With regard to the statement that the previous government did give seed grain to the province of Quebec in a very small area, my information is that the provincial government supplied the seed grain, and the federal government increased the subvention that year in connection with it.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The federal government paid for it.


Robert Weir: As to the criticism with reference to these appointments, one man-evidently he is championed to a certain extent by the hon. member who spoke in connection with sheep grading-the recognition of whose work so far as I know was not disputed as a result was promoted. So far as I am personally aware there were no representations made on behalf of any person. An examination was held to fill that position, and
28i2
Supply-Agriculture

the information given me by my officers is that the man chosen at that examination stood well above any of his competitors. I can assure the hon. member that irrespective of any political leanings that he may have,-I atn not aware that he has any-if his work is not satisfactory to the officers of the department he will not be retained in his position. This action has been taken with reference to other appointments since this government assumed office.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: The minister said there were some experiments in processing that were carrying on successfully in western Canada without loans from the government. Would he say where they are?


Robert Weir: One is in Saskatoon. It was started1 by the Canadian Live Stock Association, and some assistance was given by the government of Saskatchewan. I believe the one at Barrie, to which the hon. member refers, also received assistance from the provincial government of Ontario.


Mr. SANDERSON:: This discussion seems to have gone rather far afield and to have covered a wide range of subjects. I presume we are still on item 39, and I should like to make one or two observations not only with regard to that item but touching some of the other items in the estimates as well. As the representative of a riding which is largely rural I have waited patiently for some statement of policy by the Minister of Agriculture. The chief concern of the farmers in the riding I have the honour to represent appears to be that they also have been waiting for some policy to be brought forward by this government, naturally through the Minister of Agriculture, that would raise their hopes and cheer them up, if nothing more, because the farmers of Ontario are in the same plight as the farmers of western Canada. A few weeks ago I stated in this house that the farmers of Ontario were never in the condition in which they find themselves at present. Not only do they not know how to make ends meet financially; in addition they have lost their morale. They are in the depths of despair, and for almost two years now they have been waiting for some ray of hope.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Twelve years.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is my hon. friend
speaking? I have never seen him rise to his feet and speak in this house yet.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: You have not been here
yourself.
[Mr. Robert Weir.l


Eccles James Gott: He said twelve years, and that is right.


Frederick George Sanderson: I was remarking about the lack of policy of this government especially with reference to agriculture. Most of the letters I have had from my riding have been from farmers asking me when I expected some agricultural policy to be given out by this government. So far this session my reply has been that when the estimates of the Department of Agriculture were brought down I hoped the minister would outline some policy which the government might think would be of benefit to the farming communities of the country.
I want to say to the minister that I had a great deal of sympathy with him, and I do not want to be over critical. We realized that the minister came to parliament for the first time after the election of 1930. He was immediately made a minister of the crown, and great hopes were held by his friends that he would at once take hold of the department and endeavour to do something to assist the great basic industry of Canada. I had a great deal of sympathy for him in the special session of 1930 and again last year, because I thought he should be given an opportunity to get well in the saddle before too much criticism was directed at him. I must confess, however, that in this session of 1932, under the conditions existing throughout the country, the sympathy I once had for him has almost vanished. I expected that at least he would rise to-night and give us some sort of policy, but apparently he has no policy at all. The government of the day have no policies on anything; they go on in a hit and miss fashion, and they have not hit very much since they came into power. But it was expected that the Minister of Agriculture, who has been heralded by the Conservative press throughout the length and breadth of this country as one of the outstanding members of this government-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frederick George Sanderson: My friends across the
way applaud; my hon. friend from South Essex applauds also. I want to tell hon. gentlemen that about all we get from the opposite side is applause. We do not get any policies or any legislation; this government has been just a hit and miss affair ever since it came into power.
To get back to the Minister of Agriculture, I had a great deal of sympathy for him, but now he has been in office for two years; he has brought forward no policy, so he should

Supply-Agriculture
not object if he is subjected to the most severe criticism. Let us consider his statements tonight in connection with item 39, which has to do with dairying. He rather prided himself and rather praised the government on the fact that butter was on an export basis and that a price of 28 cents a pound had been maintained for some time. I would remind the minister and hon. gentlemen opposite that in the campaign of 1930 they went up and down this country, when butter was selling at from 32 to 34 cents a pound, saying "Put in Mr. Bennett and within three weeks the farmers will be getting 70 cents a pound for butter."


Mr. ROWE:: Who said that?


Frederick George Sanderson: I think my hon. friend from Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) said it first, and went up and down the country repeating it.


Eccles James Gott: No; we went up and the
Liberals went down.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member for
South Essex and the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe cannot stampede me. So I say, Mr. Chairman, that I do not think the government deserve any credit at all in regard to butter. Instead they deserve condemnation, because we must not forget that, led by the right hon. Prime Minister, whose speeches were echoed and reechoed by his lieutenants, hon. gentlemen opposite went about the country saying, "Put us in power and we will get markets for the products of the farm. We will make tariffs fight for the farmer? We will get markets the world over for wheat, butter, bacon, live stock and every other product of the farm." The people of this country have long memories and they have not forgotten, but they have been very patient with the Minister of Agriculture and his department. Now, however, they have come to the point where they have given up all hope of getting anything from this department.
I want to refer for a moment to the debate which took place in this chamber yesterday with regard to Bill No. 72, which was sponsored by the Minister of Labour but which was practically taken out of his hands during the course of the debate.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. I do not think the hon. gentleman can refer to a previous debate unless it is on the same question.


Frederick George Sanderson: It is on the same
question. Mr. Chairman.


Edward James Young: That debate is not yet
concluded.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: According to rule 293
the hon. member may not refer to a previous debate of the same session unless it is on the same question.


John Livingstone Brown: Bill 72 proposes to give
power to the government to aid in the marketing of farm products.


Frederick George Sanderson: That is what I was
going to point out. That bill really is for farm relief and it covers the whole question.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: But this is a different
question. The committee is in supply.


Frederick George Sanderson: True, we have been
all over the map to-night from one end of the country to the other. I wrould point out, with all due respect to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, that there is a clause in Bill No. 72 whereby the government seek the power-and by their majority in this house they will get that p0wer-of practically a blank cheque once more to aid any industiy in the country- any manufacturing industry, any bank, any insurance company, any trust company, any corporation, with unlimited credit. They can spend the people's money and are not limited to $1,000,000 but may spend $100,000,000 or $200,000,000. The point I want to make is this-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. What the hon.
member has just said convinces me that it is not the same question, and he may not refer to that debate.


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not want to say
much more about it. I have said about ail I wanted to say. The government, under this Bill 72, which will pass in a day or two, will have unlimited power to aid all sorts of manufacturing concerns; yet they come into this house with estimates for the basic industry of Canada and show a reduction in those estimates of $3,300,000 odd, notwithstanding the fact that, if agriculture does not prosper, no one in Canada can be prosperous. They have money for everybody but the farmers. They have money for their friends the big interests; they have money for their friends the manufacturing interests; they have money for everybody except the farmer, and the estimates which should be intended to assist the farmer are reduced by 33J per cent or, as I have pointed out, 83,300,000. As has been pointed out in this house time and again in connection with various matters that have been under discussion, the government seem
Supply-A gricult ure

to forget that the basic industry of this country, namely, agriculture, should receive the first consideration of any administration. But they are going to starve that industry and save millions for the big interests. They will get authority from this house-because they have the majority behind them to carry any measure they bring in-to starve the basic industry of this dominion. They do not appear to be at all concerned about markets for the farmers' products.
Coming back to the minister, he said tonight that he thought he would have a policy. He said, if I heard him rightly, "I discussed the matter with some of my friends and came to the conclusion that there should be a national marketing board. I was of that opinion myself and I still am, but in discussing it with some of my friends I have decided that we will not do anything until after the Imperial conference which is to be held in this city in July." Now, what are they waiting for? Why, three months after they came into power in 1930, if they had been alive to the interests of the country, if they had been alive to our basic industry, they would have formulated some policy for the agriculturists of Canada. But to-day at this late date they have no policy and the minister brings down his estimates to-night, reduced, not by ten per cent but by thirty-three and a third per cent-reduced S3,300,000-and he says, "We have no policy yet, but I have been discussing the question and perhaps after the conference we shall have a policy." Had they been alive to the interests of the farmers, the government would before now have formulated a policy which they could submit to the Imperial conference in an endeavour to obtain a market for the farm products of this country. But they are stifling the trade of the country. They talk about manufacturing in Canada, and hands are being laid off. One thing that the Conservative party has always forgotten is that prosperity in this country must come primarily from the products of the farm. If the farmers are not prosperous, no one will prosper: the manufacturers will have no business, the banks will have no business, the insurance companies will have no business. But hon. gentlemen opposite are neglecting the great basic industry because apparently they do not care. Apparently they do not care for the farmers, but I want to tell them that when the time comes for the farmers of Canada to register their votes, then independent of party feeling or party bias, ninety-five per cent of the Canadian farmers 
will mark their ballots against this government and turn them out, electing some government that will at least realize that the basic industry of Canada is farming.


Mr. PICKEL:: We have heard a long
discussion this evening and great anxiety has been expressed by members of the opposition as to what our policy is. I would ask those hon. gentlemen what their agricultural policy was in regard to the dairy industry. They never had a policy; this country simply drifted in that regard. The only legislation which the Liberal government passed, presumably for the benefit of the eastern dairy farmers, was restrictive and it was very injurious to those farmers. We had a hog grading act, an egg grading act, and various inspections. At one time, in 1926, 1927 and 1928, we had four different inspections. We had a Montreal inspection, a provincial inspection, a federal inspection and a New York inspection, with different regulations governing each.
A good deal of anxiety has been expressed in regal'd to our agricultural policy. Let me say that to-day, for the first time in many years, we- have a Minister of Agriculture who exhibits a little bit of sympathy towards mixed and dairy farming. That is something we have not had in this country for many years. I would advise hon. members opposite to have patience for a short time and they will see that distinct, guiding policies will be evolved.
They are complaining about the price of butter to-day. What was it in 1926, 1927 and 1928? We used to compare it with prices in the United States. At the present time we are getting better prices for butter and eggs than farmers in the United States are receiving. In the first fifteen days of September, 1926, the United States farmer got twenty-six cents a pound more for his butter than we did on this side of the line. We got twenty-nine cents while he received fifty-five cents per pound. For twenty years the United States farmers got from seven to twenty cents a pound more than we did. This is the first time in all these years that the price of butter has been higher in Canada than on the other side of the line.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Has my hon. friend
seen the last report of the Department of Agriculture under date of May 7 giving comparisons in regard to the price of butter? In Canada it was sixteen and one-half cents while in New York it was twenty and one-half cents.

Supply-Agriculture


Follin Horace Pickel: I do not deny that report
may be correct, but I say, generally speaking for the past six months our egg and butter prices have been much better than they have been across the line.
As regards the reduction in the agriculture estimates and the references made by some lion, members opposite to different inspectors being laid off and so forth, I should like to cite what occurred in the port of Montreal from 1925 to 1930 while the Australian treaty was in force. During that period the then government maintained seventeen butter graders in that port. In 1928 one of them told me that they had hardly enough butter there to grade for their own use and yet seventeen graders were maintained during that time. The peculiar feature about that grading was [DOT]this: When we did happen to have a box or two of butter to export, the Englishmen did not accept our grading; he graded it himself. My hon. friends opposite have been making loud noises just to impress their electors; that is all they are doing. I agree with many of them that agriculture is very important and I maintain that the dairy farmer of the east is entitled to some consideration. I have nothing tp say against the wheat growers, but for the last fifteen or twenty years, what attention has been devoted to agriculture has been for the benefit of the grain growers of the west. They must not forget that for one grain grower west of the lakes there are two farmers in the east, and that seventy-five per cent of the taxes come from Ontario and Quebec. We want to do anything we can to help the grain growers, but I submit that the whole agricultural policy of the government should not be for the benefit of the west.


Mr. POULIOT:: After such a speech, the farmers of the eastern townships will be prosperous and rich. I have never before heard a member representing a rural constituency uttering such nonsense as the hon. gentleman has done.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: To say that an hon. member is talking nonsense is hardly parliamentary.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, I will say not common sense. My hon. friend spoke against inspectors. There are inspectors to classify daily products, indeed, to classify all farm products, and it is only after such a classification that the farmers can get a fair price. This is something that is known to every man, even to a doctor who lives among farmers. I have for a long time advocated the appointment of inspectors for farm products, because such inspection is most essential. Formerly farm
products and, in particular, potatoes, were not graded and the farmers got very little for their products. After inspectors were appointed, after farm products were graded, the farmers received much higher prices. The reason why inspectors should be appointed is that farm products may be graded one, two, three, or A, B, C, as the case may be, so that when the purchaser goes to the market he can get exactly what he wants, for instance, grade 1 or grade 2 potatoes and so on. In the old days that was not the case. When the hon. member for Brome-iMissisquoi was young, when a man went into a store and asked for something, he would be told by the merchant: I have not that, but you should take this and it will suit you just as well. Well, when a purchaser goes to a store and says he wants such and such, if he does not get it, he goes to the next store or to the next town in order to get it.
I must congratulate the hon. member for Missisquoi on rising to speak. We have all heard about the Tories from Quebec being dead. I might use in respect to them the term which was used during the war "debout les morts"-"Stand up, you dead." Since the election took place we have not heard fiom them in regard to butter. They have been as silent as rocks. I cannot compare them to trees, because sap comes out of trees. They are just as dumb as stones. Now they swallow what they vomited before the election. This is what all the Tories from the province of Quebec, especially those from the eastern townships, who were elected because of butter, have been doing. During the last election we heard all sorts of, not nonsense, but things that were not common sense. I make an exception to you, Mr. Chairman, because I have more consideration for you than for your colleagues in the party from Quebec.
Progress reported.


ARMS AND AMMUNITION
Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a message from the Senate that Their Honours do unite with the House of Commons in the approval of the international convention for the supervision of the international trade in arms and ammunition, Geneva, 17th June, 1925, signed on behalf of Canada by the Honourable Raoul Dandurand on the 22nd September, 1925.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standuur order.
Radio-Report of Committee
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 11, 1932.