Mr. J. A. BARRETTE (Berthier Maskin-onge) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to lay on the table of the house petitions signed by the tobacco growers of the province of Quebec, also by farmers and consumers of said province protesting against the excise tax of 20 cents per pound on Canadian tobacco.
Mr. J. L. BARIBEAU (Champlain), (Translation) : Mr. Speaker, I wish to lay on the table of the house a letter from the "Union Catholique des cultivateurs de la province de Quebec" strongly protesting against an excise tax of 20 cents per pound on leaf tobacco sold by the growers to consumers or for exportation purposes.


Mr. J. F. POULIOT (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inquire from the hon. members who have just spoken where they got their information because we also have people who are interested in the matter.



MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Acting Minister of Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 6 to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. DURANLEAU:: The amendment sought by this bill is for the purpose of preventing the export of cans of fish falsely or incorrectly labelled or marked. Under the existing legislation even if cans are wrongly labelled or marked they cannot be interfered with until they are offered on the market in a retail way. We believe that this amendment will be in the public interest.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FISHERIES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Acting Minister of Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 7 to amend the Fisheries Act, 1932.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Alfred Duranleau: This merely involves a correction of a reference number to a certain section. When the act was before parliament in 1932 a section was added to the act, and no correction was made to one of them, as originally numbered, in sending the bill to the printer.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: What is the section?


Alfred Duranleau: Section 56, subsection (5).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	How much of the following resources of Canada, in raw or semi-raw state, was exported during the calendar years 1929 and 1930: asbestos, nickel, pulp -wood, pulp, iron ore, silver, gold, and zinc?
2.	How much of above resources was exported in raw or semi-raw state during the calendar years 1931, 1932 and 1933?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Canada's domestic exports of asbestos, nickel, pulp wood, pulp, iron ore, silver, gold and zinc, during the calendar years 1929 and 1930, were:
		1929	1930
Asbestos	. .Ton	143,725	104,262Asbestos sand	$ and	10,127,208	6,441,939waste	. .Ton	148,305	131,238$	2,507,474	2,011,318Pulp wood.. ..	. .Cord	1,294,995	1,330,466$	13,314,738	13,611,617Wood pulp.. ..	. ,'Cwt.	16,616,966	15,204,406$	43,367,984	39,059,979Iron ore	. .Ton	3,859	558$	19,461	3,025Silver in ore. .	. . .Oz.	7,058,275	8,473,189$	3,736,204	3,401,340Silver bullion. .	. ..Oz.	14,879,770	15,778,755* Gold-bearing quartz,	8,022,917	6,180,412dust, nuggets,	etc...$	29,995,983	22,312,605Zinc in ore.. ..	. ,'Cwt.	257,389	469,641$	1,415,725	1,014,915Zinc spelter. ..	. .Cwt.	1,350,857	1,509,641$ Zinc scrap, dross and	7,031,645	5,146,215ashes	. .Cwt.	76,382	48,089$	262,719	92,651
2. Canada's domestic exports of the above items during the calendar years 1931 and 1932, were:
Questions

		1931	1932
Asbestos	70.903	42,661$	3,929.317	2,115,140Asbestos sand	and	waste	88,535	69,769$	1,245,326	986,095Pulp wood	Cord	957,303	529,019s	9,359,592	4,830,506Wood pulp.. ..	Cwt.	12,450,741	9,045,857$	30,056,643	18,930,064Iron ore	.Ton	1,555	720$	5.192	2,354Silver in ore. ..	. .Oz.	4,017,182	3,488,094$	1,168,261	982,652Silver bullion..	. .Oz.	14,649,185	13,504,060s	4,230.998	3,978,438G old-bearing quartz,	dust, nuggets, etc...$	17,682,563	3,925,729Zinc in ore	Cwt.	Zinc spelter.. ..	Cwt.	2,380,180	1,753,218s	5,554,511	3,852,990Zinc scrap, dross	and	ashes	Cwt.	10,931	8,279$	10,018	9,522Canada's domestic exports of 1	the aboveitems during the calendar year 1933, were:	1933Asbestos	78,701$	3,998,377Asbestos sand and	waste	.. ..Ton	70,296$	991,417Pulp wood	651,958$	4.696,459Wood pulp.. ..	12,170,186$	23,354,637Iron ore	1,774$	1,563Silver in ore	3,362,354S	1,093,464Silver bullion.. ..	.. . . Oz.	10,738,729$	3,759,387Gold-bearing quartz, dust.	nuggets.	etc	. .$	2.299 650Zinc in ore	. ..Cwt.	83,256$	135,249Zinc spelter..	1,734,534$	4,990,705Zinc scrap, dross and ashes..Cwt.	63,021S	47,060AMOUNT DUE PROVINCE OF	' NEW BRUNSWICK*


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	What amount was due the government of the province of New Brunswick on October 31, 1933, and what are the details?
2.	Did the government of the province of New Brunswick apply to the federal government for the withdrawal of the 6um of $529,299, which has been to the credit of that province since confederation?

3.	If so, when was the application made?
4.	Is legislation by the government of New Brunswick necessary to authorize the withdrawal of said sum?


Mr. RHODES:: I am submitting an answer to this question but in doing so I feel that I should direct the attention of the house tp the fact that the hon. gentleman who has asked the question has contravened the rules of the house in making an assertion of fact. It would be none the less a contravention of the rules if the facts were correctly stated but as a matter of fact the sum mentioned was not established at confederation nor did it appear at that time. It was part of the debt adjustments which were made several years after confederation. I raise this question not for the purpose of evading an answer buit merely to ensure adherence to the procedure which has been recognized by this house for many yearn. The answers are as follows:
1.	Amount at credit New Brunswick's debt allowance account, October 31, 1933, $529,299.39.
2.	The province has applied for the withdrawal of the above mentioned amount.
3.	October, 1933.
4.	See sections 6 (2) and 11 of the Provincial Subsidies Act, lt.S. c. 192.


WESTERN DIVISION OF FISHERIES SALARIES
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	What is the name, position and salary of each person in the office of the western division of fisheries at Vancouver, during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1934?
2.	What, if any, reduction has been arranged to take place in tile above office as from the beginning of the next fiscal year?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.		Salary rate (subject to
Name	Position	10 per cent deduction)J. A. Motherwell	Div. Supervisor.	$4,020A. Mackie	Dist. Supervisor.	2,760W. M. Chapman	Departmental	Acot. Grade 2.	2,580J. K. Raphael	Pr. Clerk	2,400L. G. Swan	Pr. Clerk	2,040G. F. Found	Collector of	Fish Revenue.	2,040(Mr. Found was retired and the	position abolished Dec. 22, 1933)	T. Taylor	Clerk Gr. 4.. ..	1,740E. C. Miitehell	Clerk Gr. 2.. ..	1,380M. Brewster	Sten. Gr. 2.. ..	1,380A. B. McPhail	Sten. Gr." 2.. ..	1,140A. Dearden	Sten. Gr. 2.. ..	1,140J. C. Hynd	Typist Gr. 2. ..	1,140T. B. Stoddard	Messenger Clk..	1,020
2. None.

Unemployment Relief


QUEBEC DEPARTMENT OF COLONIZATION WORK
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Since the month of August, 1933, has the Department of Colonization of the province of Quebec proposed to the federal government that it carry on certain work in the parishes of St. Elzear, St. Emile d'Auclair and St. Benoit de Packington, Temiscouata county?
2.	Has this work been approved by the federal government?
3.	If so, on what date?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 1. Yes.
2 & 3. The relief works proposed to be carried out by the Province of Quebec at St. Emile d'Auclair, Temiscouata County, received Dominion approval on January 24th, while the works proposed to be carried out at St. Elzear and St. Benoit de Packington are still under consideration.


PRICE OF SILVER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timiskam-ing):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a
question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). Last week it came to my notice that a resolution had been sent to the Department of Finance from the Cobalt district to the effect that the people of that district wanted the price of silver fixed at sixty cents an ounce. Will the government announce its policy in this regard?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have no recollection at
the moment of any such requests having been received by the Department of Finance, but I will make inquiry. Even if the request had been received, however, I am afraid I could not submit an answer to the second portion of the question.


VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: May I ask whether the Minister
of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) can answer my question to-day with regard to the Vancouver harbour commissioners.


Alfred Duranleau: After careful perusal of the
records, I find that no demand was made for the resignation of the harbour commissioners of Vancouver, and no resignation received and of course it was not considered nor accepted. I know what my hon. friend is driving at, and in fairness to the house, I may say that when these gentlemen were in Ottawa-during last November, I think-some representations were made to them with respect to the purchase of a motor car which, in our opinion, should not have been made in these times. But no demand for their resignation was made.
CORRECTION On the orders of the day:


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) :: I wish to correct an error I made yesterday when I was speaking on the address. I stated the increase I paid last year for farm implement repairs was due to the order in council bringing into effect the 25 per cent duty proposed by the government in 1930. This statement is incorrect as in last year's budget the duty prior to 1930 was restored, and the duty could not be held responsible for the increased price.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: May I ask whether all orders in council which have been passed since the last session under the authority of the Relief Act have been laid on the table of the house-for instance, one concerning guarantees to the Canadian Pacific Railway, a copy of which has been sent to my leader. I think the house has a right to have all these orders on the table.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: It will be recalled perhaps that at the last session, when the act was being passed, a suggestion was made by, I think, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) that precis of orders in council should be published in the Canada Gazette, and as a matter of fact such precis were published in the Canada Gazette from week to week, though while the house is in session the orders in council are brought down. If it is thought desirable that these orders in council should be filed, of course they will be, because a return of the house could be obtained to have this done. I merely point out however that the statute has been strictly followed, and there was no obligation to lay upon the table of the house orders in council that had been passed during the recess. But with the opening of the house it becomes necessary that each order in council as passed should be laid on the table, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) has laid them on the table to-day, as I daresay the hon. gentleman observed. If, however, it is the wish of the house that all these orders in council, particulars of which have been published, should be laid on the table, I will see that it is done.


Ernest Lapointe: My understanding was
that the precis published in the Gazette were additional to the laying of orders on the
144	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Thompson (Lanark)
table. If the right hon. gentleman will be kind enough to have the orders tabled the house will be grateful.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would not wish us to go to the trouble of filing them all. Orders that have attached to them long and tedious pages of accounts from the provinces, I should not think the hon. gentleman would wish to have; but we will file such as deal with matters other than ordinary questions of relief. If there are others which he wishes we will see that they are produced. I was under the impression which the hon. gentleman himself had until I looked into the matter and found that it was not necessary to table the orders passed during the recess.


GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, January 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gobeil for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, the amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Gardiner.
Mr. T. A. THOMPSON (Lanark):: In rising to resume the debate, I wish at the outset to congratulate the mover (Mr. Gobeil) and the seconder (Mr. Barber) of the address on the splendid speeches they made, reflecting great credit not only upon themselves but also upon the constituencies which they have the honour to represent.
I listened very carefully the other day for over four hours to the speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and I was very much disappointed when he was through. During that entire time there was no constructive policy, there was nothing put forward by the right hon. gentleman but fault-finding. He found fault with the present administration, and I began to wonder whether these men sitting on the treasury benches, grown old in the service of their country, were attempting to pull down and ruin the reputation of Canada, or whether after all they did not have some business judgment and there was not something that they had done that could find approval from the leader of the opposition.
The right hon. gentleman made the statement that we had a million on relief and a million and a half unemployed, a statement which is not borne out by the facts. I have received a report from the Deputy Minister of Labour giving the figures for the months of November and December of 1932 and 1933 respectively as to the number of families on
rMr. Lapointe.]
relief, and that I submit is the fairest way of estimating the number of people on relief in this country. A bread-winner is out of work and goes on relief. He may have a wife and family of half a dozen children, but it is not right to suggest that his wife and children should be numbered amongst the unemployed. He is the head of one family, one bread-winner who has gone on relief. I am therefore giving the number of families that have been on relief, which as I say is the fairest way of arriving at an honest conclusion.
In November, 1933, there were 17,783 less families on relief than there were in November, 1932, and in December, 1933, there were 25,679 less families on relief than there were in December, 1932. That shows conclusively that we are to-day in a better and not in a worse condition than we were a year ago. I cannot understand therefore what good purpose is to be served by public men decrying and blackening the reputation of their own country at a time when every loyal citizen is straining every effort to pull the Canadian people out of the morass and entanglement in which they have found themselves.
Yesterday we listened to another speech, this time from the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart), in which he denounced the tariff policies of this government. He waxed very eloquent and worked himself into a great fever, holding up his hands in holy horror. I thought at the time he was longing for a tambourine or a little tin drum on which to beat the death knell of protection. Whatever it may be, he charged the Prime Minister and the Conservative party with being responsible for all the ills that exist in this country at the present time, and especially did he charge that the policies of the present government were responsible for our unemployment situation. These statements are not borne out by the facts. I claim that the greatest factor in causing unemployment in Canada was the unbusinesslike immigration policy of the Liberal government from 1921 to 1930. During those years they brought in 1,187,319 immigrants against the protests of the provinces in which those people were placed and against the business judgment of our most able Canadians. In the last two years during which they were responsible for immigration, and at a time when our own men were unemployed and when every man who had any insight into our future knew it was a wrong policy, they brought in 331,000 immigrants, of whom 99,000 who came in during the last year were single men who immediately went on relief. Had the former Liberal administration followed the same

The Address-Mr. Thompson (Lanark)
immigration policy that is being pursued by the present government and restricted immigration to the extent we have done there would be no unemployment and no need for relief here to-day.
When the present government took office they found the markets of the world largely closed to the Canadian exporters. France, Germany, Italy, that formerly took millions of bushels of our wheat, had raised their tariffs to a prohibitive height. The United States to which we had sent a large quantity of our produce had from time to time raised their tariffs making it impossible for us to do business with them with any degree of satisfaction. In 1922 the Fordney-McCumber tariff hit the Canadian exporter a serious blow, and this was followed in 1930 by the Hawley-Smoot tariff, making it impossible for the Canadian exporter to do business with the nation to the south of us. The point I would emphasize is that these European and United States markets were lost to the Canadian exporter between 1921 and 1930 when our hon. friends opposite were in power. I do not blame the Liberal government of that day for the tariff policies of foreign countries but I do blame them for taking knock after knock lying down. I blame them for sitting with folded hands while the markets of the world were being closed to Canadian products and allowing the Canadian market to be the dumping ground for the surplus products of every other nation in the world. Further I say that the tariff policy of the present government has kept Canada solvent and that by securing in the British market a substantial preference for the Canadian exporter they have safeguarded the Canadian producer and protected the Canadian farmer from the very worst effects of the present world depression. The imperial trade agreements made at Ottawa and the general policy of the present government have combined to wipe out a heavy adverse trade balance and to replace it with a favourable trade balance of $136,000,000. This has been one of the greatest achievements of the present government. Notwithstanding the fact that economic nationalism has been paralysing international trade, the Canadian exporter found a haven from the general chaos of world trade in a sheltered market of the British Empire where, in the best market in the world for agricultural and other primary products, the present government has secured for him a preference.
There is nothing that affects Canada to a greater extent than the repayment of her foreign debts and her future borrowing in the foreign money market, and judging from our experience in the past I am convinced there should be set up in Canada a board of 74726-10
financial experts to whom all prospective borrowers should be asked to submit their propositions before being permitted to enter the foreign money market. Such a board would safeguard us against excessive, borrowings and protect us from those dangerous terms of repayment that have characterized so many of our loans in the past. The whole economic system of the world is to-day labouring under a nightmare of debt that is paralyzing and demoralizing those who receive the loan as well as those who make it.
We have to the south of us a great nation of 130,000,000 people experimenting with a species of dictatorship, feverishly endeavouring to raise themselves out of the morass of economic and financial entanglements in which they find themselves involved. We wish them well; we trust they will be successful because we realize that the future welfare and prosperity of this dominion is inseparably associated with that of the United States. We are neighbours living close together and what affects the one will always materially affect the other. But while they are strenuously endeavouring to bring about new conditions and a better social life in their country, they seem to forget all about the debt, and I should like to call to their remembrance this fact, that the same prayer which says "Thy kingdom come" says also "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors."
Our hon. friends opposite during former sessions in the house and on the stump throughout the country have apparently taken great delight in comparing prices of farm produce since 1930 with what they were prior to that date. They seem to forget that no government can control world prices, and that the inexorable law of supply and demand rules the world to-day as it ever did. The only comparison that can be fairly made is between the prices of farm products in Canada and the prices in other countries. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the prices of agricultural products in Canada since 1930 have been higher in comparison with those in other countries than they were during the regime of our hon. friends opposite. Take prices to-day; we have pork selling on the hoof in Montreal and Toronto at 10 cents, while in Chicago it is selling at only 4 cents. The best sign of the recovery from the depression is to be found in the fact that agricultural products are continually rising in price. Canada is essentially an agricultural country, and until the farmers of Canada receive a fair remuneration for their labour and the capital they have invested there will be no real prosperity in this dominion. As a direct re-

146	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Thompson (Lanark)
suit of the agreements made by this government, Canada to-day has a wonderful opportunity to supply bacon to the British market. I find that in 1932 Denmark supplied 67 per cent of Great Britain's imported bacon, Poland, 10-02 per cent, Holland, 8-05 per cent, Sweden, 3-77 per cent, Lithuania, 4-52 per cent, Irish Free State, 1-75 per cent, and Canada only 1-6 per cent, the lowest percentage of any country. Under the agreement with Great Britain, Canada is permitted to send into that country 280,000,000 pounds of bacon annually. While we have doubled our exports to the British market we have not yet exceeded 25 per cent of the ' quota that has been allowed us. With pork at the price it is to-day, and still 75 per cent of our quota not taken up, there is a wonderful opportunity for the farmers of this dominion.
In the county of Lanark, which I have the honour to represent, the policies of the former government had driven our manufacturers almost to the wall. Many of our factories were closed down, few of them were running over half time. To-day every textile mill in the county of Lanark is running full time, and several are running day and night. Some of the mills that have been closed for years have been reopened. This is a direct result of the tariff policies of the present administration in restricting imports from foreign countries where the scale of wages and the standard of life is so much below that of Canada that they can afford to undersell us in our own market. The opening of these factories in Lanark county has been of great assistance to the farmers, because when the men and women engaged in industrial life have steady employment, they have purchasing power wherewith to buy the commodities that the farmers produce. Mouths are the farmers' best market.
We hear a great deal about social betterment in this country. We want social betterment, but we want it without socialism and without communism. We must have progress, in a young country like Canada we cannot stand still. Changing conditions must bring new remedies. But I have no sympathy with those organizations which would attempt to build up an economic system in Canada such as they have in Russia, based upon atheism, hatred and repudiation of debt. The danger to our present democracy does not lie in attacks made upon it by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation or similar organizations. The real danger to democracy to-day lies in the apathy of its own defenders, the men on the one hand who claim that our

present day democracy is rooted and grounded in Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights and so cannot be disturbed, and on the other hand those who use the privileges and liberties afforded by democracy to further their own selfish interests without due regard to the interests of their fellowmen. To-day we have agitation to change the whole system, but it gets us nowhere to damn it and to call it a canker on the body politic. The wise statesman must look for the cause of that eruption, and honestly- endeavour to heal it. And in lopping off the dead branches we must be careful not to destroy the living branches or the living part of the tree that has taken ages of the very best that was in humanity to produce.
Just before this house opened there was held in Ottawa a conference of the premiers of the different provinces. While the meetings were held in secret, enough has leaked out to assure the public that several of these premiers were here asking further assistance for their provinces. Now, Mr. Speaker, if these provinces have been unfortunate, if the grasshoppers have eaten them up, if the drought has burnt them out, if the hail and frost have destroyed their harvests, then I say let us come to their assistance, because these are things over which they have no control. But if those provinces insist on electing legislatures that will spend their resources unwisely, that will bonus railways, guarantee wheat pools, enter into social legislation which they cannot afford and which the application of sane business principles would have taught them to avoid, then I say it is out of the question that they can continue any such expenditure and come to Ottawa to have their bills paid.


Mr. DONNELLY:: They will not. It will not be long now.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: The province of Ontario pays approximately 45 per cent of the taxes of the Dominion of Canada, Quebec approximately 30 per cent and the remainder, some 25 per cent, is paid by the other seven provinces. How long should the federal government make good-I ask as a business proposition

the extravagance of these provinces? These provinces are not poor, they have wonderful natural resources. The trouble has been poor administration. I am of the opinion that they should be told to put their own houses in order, balance their budgets, live within their means, and that it is high time they were self-sustaining. Since this government took office in 1930

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
they have had to deal with an overwhelming succession, of new phases of the economic situation for which there was no precedent in Canadian history and for which our oldest and most experienced statesmen were altogether unprepared. The fact that the ship of state has been safely guided through the dangerous shoals and is to-day heading for the high seas clearly indicates that a master hand has been at the helm.
I have every confidence in the future of this country; I am not one of those crying blue ruin. I have every confidence in the two great races that form the foundation stock of Canada, the English and the French. They have the hardihood, the business ability and the courage to surmount every obstacle that may lie in their path, and I hope they will work in unison for the future development and prosperity of our common Canada.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there is little in the
speech from the throne that is sufficiently definite to form the basis of any very clear discussion. I should like first of all, however, to protest against the military display that we witnessed at the opening. If Canada is earnestly endeavouring to promote peace it would seem to me that there is no necessity of our putting on such a warlike front. I have sometimes wondered why, at the opening of parliament, we might not have deputations of business men, of farmers, of railway men, of miners, and of those others who have laid the foundations for the life of Canada. If we had those men present instead of such a host of officials, backed up by so many military men, it would seem to me that possibly we would create an atmosphere that would bring us a little nearer reality. I suppose the practical difficulty would be that our table of precedence does not permit of anything of the kind.
The speech from the throne refers to improved world conditions. I can hardly understand this, in view of the news that is coming to us daily from almost all parts of the world. Undoubtedly we have witnessed a decline in the influence of the League of Nations; we have been witnessing the practical abandonment of the disarmament conference, and yet I take it that all thoughtful students of international affairs admit that permanent recovery is possible only as we have peace and as we are. able to develop the collective system. Further than that, we have been witnessing and participating in an intensified economic nationalism. We deprecate 74726-10$
that when it is manifested by other nations, but we have taken our full share to such an extent that from the practical point of view, it is becoming increasingly difficult, for us to market many of our primary products in Europe. We have witnessed still further in Europe the decline of many of the older democratic or so called democratic systems. There we have seen arise bolshevism, fascism and Hitlerism. Even in England there have been very radical changes, though not so much in outward form. In the United States we have had what almost might be termed a revolution, as manifested in the very great changes which the president has introduced.
In view of all these changes that are going on throughout the world I have been wondering whether there is no hope of our having a new deal for Canada. Apparently, notwithstanding the eulogistic references of the last speaker, this government is pretty much content to go along the old, beaten trail.
I think there is no member of any of the self-governing dominions who was not very decidedly perturbed by the fate of our sister dominion, Newfoundland, where they have given up even the forms of democracy. Responsible government has been replaced by administration by a commission, with what amounts to practically dictatorial powers, and I would say that this change has been made primarily not in the interests of the people of Newfoundland but in the interests of the bondholders.
The same sort of thing is going on in our western provinces and municipalities. I shall not take time to discuss the points raised by the last speaker, who referred to the extravagance of the western provinces; that would take too long. I think I could make out a case to show that we have not been more extravagant than other provinces, but the point is that at the present time we are practically bankrupt. A great many of our municipalities are actually bankrupt, and under those circumstances we cannot much longer carry on the ordinary services for which government is constituted. We face, in fact, a new type of slavery in this country, and that is bondage to the bondholders. As children we were taught that freedom had been obtained. Certain kinds of freedom have been obtained, including so called political freedom, though even that is indanger these days. But newer types of economic serfdom are being fastened upon us at the present time. I could not but recall recently a little verse by Herbert Carruth,

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
as published some years ago in Current Literature:
The rights of men are a by-word;
The bones are not yet dust
Of those who broke the shackles,
And the shackles are not yet rust [DOT]
Till the masters are forging new ones,
And coward lips are sealed
While the code that cost a million lives Is step by step repealed.
To-day we are witnessing a new type of society in which very few of us have any very large measure of freedom. I think it was Rabindranath Tagore who said some years ago that chains were none the less real because they were either invisible or golden.
I spoke of the financial condition of the municipalities and provinces of the west. Let me point out how these affect the living condition of many of our people. In the last few days in Winnipeg, my own city, we have had what might be called a doctors' strike. The doctors have refused any longer to give free medical attendance, and they have recently signed this declaration:
I undertake to refuse free medical service in the office, hospital or home to any individual in receipt of relief unless an emergency exists. An emergency is one in which life is in imminent danger and for which immediate action is required. This is to take effect on and after the 15th day of February, 1934, unless the civic and/or municipal authorities concerned have made satisfactory arrangements with our committee.
The secretary explains that even a case of ordinary confinement is not to be regarded as an emergency case, except in the case of hemorrhage or convulsions; only then will the doctor consent to come to the bedside of the patient. I do not propose to discuss the professional ethics involved in this question. I recall that some years ago when there was a strike in Winnipeg and when the milk drivers and some of the members of the fire brigades went on strike, a great cry was raised to heaven and it was said that under no circumstances should milk drivers or fire fighters desert their posts of duty. But now we have the doctors, for their own reasons, and possibly they are justifiable, in order to force an issue, refusing to give medical service to any one on relief. We all know there has been a question as to where the responsibility for giving relief lies, whether with the Dominion government or the provinces or the municipalities, and in what degree each is responsible. First of all, when we thought of relief we thought of food. Then we had to extend it to clothing, and out in our part of the world, where it is cold, we had to extend it to shelter, and even to fuel and
Xlr. Woodsworth.]
light, and as these new items have come into view we have found that it is very difficult to get agreement as to who should assume responsibility for these new types of relief.
Now we have hospitalization and medical care. I point out that owing to the practical bankruptcy of many of our municipalities it is next to impossible for them to advance further sums of money for this type of relief. The other day the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden), himself a medical man, raised the question in this house, and the Prime Minister's reply was that he had communicated to the representatives of the medical profession "that there was no reason to believe that the provinces would not discharge their constitutional duties with respect to the health of their citizens." Thait may be all very well, from a purely constitutional standpoint, but may I say that when there is absolute misery I cannot think that this government or any government is justified in taking such a position as that. If there was a flood, we would not stop to argue whether it was a provincial or federal responsibility to launch rafts and save the citizens; we would go out and pull out of the water the poor fellows who were threatened with being engulfed. And what then shall we say in the case of women who expect in a few days to become mothers, scores of them, who must face that very, very serious crisis in their lives with no hope of obtaining medical assistance unless their case is extreme. I think this is altogether too serious a matter to be allowed to pass unnoticed by this house. I must recall again, those words of Mr. Bennett which have been repeated very often, spoken when he was seeking to become the Prime Minister. He said:
I say to you, my fellow citizens, my fellow Canadians, speaking to the larger audience, I am convinced this problem h.as now ceased' to be local and provincial and has become national in its importance.
The Prime Minister paid a glowing tribute the other day to those to whom honours had been given, and said that some of them were doing work on the pioneer front. I want to say that if these women doing social work should be given honours, much more should help be given to those who are about to give birth to children and who have no one at the present time to look to for assistance. It is not much wonder that large numbers of them to-day are seeking to learn the principles of birth control.
The speech from the throne goes on to say that the "improved world conditions are reflected in Canada by expanding trade, im-

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
proving revenues, increasing employment, and a more confident outlook upon the future." As far as those of us from the west are concerned, that is indeed news. I am not going to enter upon the battle of figures which raged here for some hours, but I should like to call attention to some particular incidents that would seem to show that all is not just rosy at the present time.
Here is a heading and paragraph I noticed in the Toronto papers a few weeks ago, on September 26:
Machine gun tanks sent to Stratford to quiet Etrikers.	.	_
Wearing steel helmets and carrying wartime equipment the regiment detrained here this morning, prepared to guard the plant of the Swift Canadian Company and six _ furniture factories where employees are on strike.
We were told that the poultry workers were being paid two cents for each chicken plucked and that they wanted one cent more, and that it was refused them. If we are having so much prosperity it would seem to me that it might very well be reflected in the extra cent for plucking a fowl which these poultry workers asked for.
With regard to the furniture workers, they are to no small extent the victims of the mass buying recently denounced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). Just here I should like to suggest to the minister that we in this comer shall be very glad to cooperate in any way possible in making the investigation into that matter a success. We can assure the government of our support and will do our very best to try to uncover those bad conditions which have left so many work people, as well as the consumers, in difficulties.
But I should like to ask this. Why not also investigate the dealings of our financial promoters and manipulators? Men like Holt and others of his kind are placing burdens upon this country under which the ordinary people can hardly struggle. Only a few months ago I came across a rather interesting account of the way in which many fortunes have been made in this country. It is taken from Retrospects of a Newspaper Person, by Mr. P. D. Ross of this city. Mr. Ross had done a Mr. W. J. Carrique a good turn, and he tells in the book the interesting sequel. I quote:
Some little time further on, another visit came from Carrique. He laid an envelope on my desk. "This is your share of stock," he said. "My share? What are you talking about?" "We have formed a little company,- the Canadian Street Car Advertising Company." . . . "But, I don't want any of your stock." I said. "It won't cost you anything," returned Carrique, "It's paid-up stock." "Who paid it up?" "Nobody, It's just issued paid-up."
I opened the envelope. It contained a certificate for $10,300 paid-up stock in the Canadian Street Car Advertising Company, capital $60,000 paid up. ... "I don't know where the rest of you fellows got the money," I said. "But I haven't any money to put in this. I don't want any of it. Leave me out."
"None of us have put in any money," Carrique returned. "We have contracts for two or more years with each of the Montreal, Hamilton and Ottawa street railway companies, we to pay certain figures for _ space in their ears to place advertisements in. The agreement is to pay each company so much a month. The receipts we are already getting from advertisers to put their cards in the cars are more than enough to enable us to make our monthly payments to the street car companies1. In fact, we are already so far ahead that we could pay a dividend on $60,000 now, and we have no liabilities to anybody." "Sounds like a fairy tale, Carrique," "It's going to be a real fairy tale," he returned. "I expect the Toronto and Winnipeg franchises, and if we get them it'll be a gold mine."
Mr. Ross continues:
I took the stock. Carrique was a wonder. Before long we had the Toronto and Winnipeg franchises, with nearly all others in Canada.
Mr. Ross goes on to say that in the fifteen years following the formation of the company he had drawn in dividends or bonuses the sum of $78,847, and the account continues:
No shareholder ever paid a dollar-not a cent-into the company. In 1919, W. J. Carrique, who was a shrewd and successful operator in other things than street railway advertising, died a near-millionaire. The Carrique estate and the rest of us soon after sold the total stock of the Canadian Street. Railway Advertising Company to Senator-Wilson of Montreal for $337,500. My share-of the proceeds of the sale was a cheque for $58,185. This, with the $78,847 received during the previous years in dividends, constituted a total of $127,032 which came to me in fifteen years from the Canadian Street Railway Advertising Company from stock for which I never put up a cent-never anything except a small amount of obligingness.
Can one wonder that Mr. Ross entitled that chapter " Why not be Obliging?" I do not know whether that is the kind of fortune that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) would say was earned by honest toil.
There is another strike to which I should like to refer, that of the lumberworkers in northern Ontario and the Rouyn district of Quebec. Harsh and repressive measures were used, yet according to the Montreal Star of January 4, the provincial government's own investigators-
All agree that the workers are being exploited by a number of contractors and sub-contractors, that their wages are inadequate, and that the goods sold to the workers in the stores operated by contractors are exorbitantly priced, so that when the season is over_ the lumberjacks find themselves not any richer

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
than before and sometimes poorer, for they are indebted to their employers for part of the goods purchased.
I should like to ask again: Why not some sort of labour code for Canada? If any of the workers in Canada have been better off in the last year it has been as a reflection of the action taken by the American government. I think that is true, for example, of the shingle-weavers on the Pacific coast.
What is this government doing? The Prime Minister declared recently in Vancouver that this government would not be a wet nurse for derelicts. The public was shocked when it realized the large number of unemployed and their plight. The Prime Minister explained in a later speech that he was speaking of derelict industries. On that basis I should like to ask about the textile industry which has been helped for many years by this and other governments. I should like to ask about the $60,000,000 guaranteed to the Canadian Pacific Railway. Is that not being a wet nurse to a derelict enterprise? That is what it seems to me to be. Hundreds of small concerns have been in dire straits and many of them have gone under but yet we find that in the case of a large concern the government comes to its aid. It is all very well to conserve the interests of the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway located in Canada, Great Britain, the United States or elsewhere, but if that is to be done I submit that the interests of those engaged in smaller industries in Canada have an equal right to be taken care of. The only consolation I get out of the transaction is that it is a step towards public ownership. I should like to make a practical suggestion. If we are to guarantee $60,000,000 to the Canadian Pacific Railway, this house ought to know whether the salary of Mr. Beatty has been cut by ten or twenty per cent. If we are to guarantee, we ought to know something about the inside history of the company. If we are to pay the debts, we ought to have something to say as to what the expenditures will be.'A
The government has recently recommended certain titles and honours but I do not intend to take up very much time in the discussion of this matter. Two more people can boast of titles because of Mr. Bennett having been Prime Minister. But hundreds of people have lost the titles which they had to their property. Most people are more interested in having a title to their little home than in having a title which may be recognized in the old country. In referring to the royal prerogative the other day it seems to me that the Prime Minister was talking a lot of solemn non-

sense. As a matter of fact by insisting upon making the exercise of the royal prerogative dependent upon an act of parliament, the Prime Minister is in reality degrading the royal prerogative. I should like to come to its defence. Let me quote from page 409 of the sixth edition of The Law of the Constitution by A. V. Dicey, as follows:
The survival of the prerogative, conferring as it does wide discretionary authority upon the cabinet, involves a consequence which constantly escapes attention. It immensely increases the authority of the House of Commons, and ultimately of the constituencies by which that house is returned. Ministers must in the exercise of all discretionary powers inevitably obey the predominant authority in the state. When the King was the chief member of the sovereign body, ministers were in fact no less than in name the King's servants. At periods of our history when the peers were the most influential body in the country, the conduct of the ministry represented with more or less fidelity the wishes of the peerage. Now that the House of Commons has become by far the most important part of the sovereign body, the ministry in all matters of discretion carry out, or tend to carry out, the will of the house. When however the cabinet cannot act except by means of legislation, other considerations come into play. A law- requires the sanction of the House of Lords. No government can increase its statutory authority without obtaining the sanction of the upper chamber.
If I understand the Prime Minister aright, he seemed to want to make any limitation of the exercise of the royal prerogative in Canada with regard to titles dependent upon the action of parliament, the Commons, the Senate and the Governor General. Let me quote one further paragraph from Dicey, as follows:
The prerogatives of the crown have become the privileges of the pepole, and anyone who wants to see how widely these privileges may conceivably be stretched as the House of Commons becomes more and more the direct representative of the true sovereign, should u-eigh well the words in which Bagehot describes the powers which can still legally be exercised by the crow-n without consulting parliament; and should remember that these powers can now be exercised by a cabinet who are really servants, not of the crown, but of a representative chamber which in turn obeys the behests of the electors.
We had a flaunting of the authority of this house the other day when the Prime Minister went back one hundred years for his authority. In that time the Commons has acquired a new' status. I quote Bagehot as follows:
I said in this book that it would very much surprise people if they were only told how-many things the Queen could do without consulting parliament, and it certainly has so proved, for when the Queen abolished purchase in the army by an act of prerogative (after the Lords had rejected the bill for doing so), there was a great and general astonishment.

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
But this is nothing to what the Queen can by law do without consulting parliament. Not to mention other things, she could disband the army (by law she cannot engage more than a certain number of men, but she is not obliged to engage any men); she could dismiss all the officers, from the general commanding-in-chief downwards; she could dismiss all the sailors too; she could sell off all our ships-of-war and all our naval stores; she could make a peace by the sacrifice of Cornwall, and begin a war for the conquest of Brittany. She could make every citizen in the United Kingdom, male or female, a peer; she could make every parish in the United Kingdom a "university"; she could dismiss most of the civil servants; she could pardon all offenders. In a word, the Queen could by prerogative upset all the action of civil government within the government, could disgrace the nation by a bad war or peace, and could, by disbanding our forces, whether land or sea, leave us defenceless against foreign nations.
The Prime Minister proved altogether too much. Let me quote another paragraph from Dicey, as follows;
If government by parliament is ever transformed into government by the House of Commons, the transformation will, it may be conjectured, be effected by use of the prerogatives of the crown.
The speech refers to certain industries which were flourishing in this country. I think of two, gold and nickel. Roosevelt is to-day taking over ail coined gold supply, and I should like to ask this question: Why should Canada continue to pay premiums for gold mined in Canada? It has always been a mystery to me. Further, what is going to be the effect on gold in this country of the decision of the American government to devaluate the dollar? If the gold content of the American dollar is to be altered, who is going to benefit in Canada-the same American corporations which all along have been benefiting? If gold is so essential, why should not gold mining become a public work for the general advantage of Canada? I suggested several years ago that we should establish work camps in the gold mining areas for the unemployed and pay them, decent wages, allowing the profits to go to the government and not to American corporations.
Another industry that seems to have been prospering is nickel. Undoubtedly a large proportion of the nickel mined in this country is destined ultimately for the manufacture of war munitions; I do not think anyone can seriously question that. " We in Canada very easily protest against the private manufacture of armaments, but in this country we have almost a monopoly of nickel; and nickel it seems, under present processes, is essential to the manufacture of armaments. Well then,
if we are really serious in our wish for peace, why should we permit the unregulated export of nickel destined to build up armaments in Europe? I would urge that the government seriously consider taking over control of the export of nickel, or better still, that they make nickel mining a government monopoly. It seems to me that if we have any difficulty at all in tracing the ultimate destination of nickel, we might readily call in the good offices of the League of Nations and at least block this one avenue to the manufacture of armaments.
The speech announces that we are to have public works. I am very glad of that, although I hope it will not be thought ungracious if I say that in my opinion we ought to have had such a program two or three years ago. I would suggest however that when these works are put into operation the workers engaged therein be given decent wages and not merely doles.
I am glad also that a central bank is to be established. We shall have an opportunity to discuss this question at greater length later on. But let me say at the outset that we in this comer will do our utmost to insist that it shall not be a privately-owned or controlled institution. Incidentally, I wonder whether the banking commission, however admirable its report, was absolutely necessary. The Prime Minister recently revealed to the Western Ontario Conservative association that over two years ago he had decided on a central bank. If it had been decided upon before the commission was appointed, possibly we might have saved the expenses of that commission.
There is one rather curious omission from the speech, and that is the usual reference to this season's bountiful harvest. I think perhaps it might have been almost fitting if there had been an expression of gratitude to the drought and grasshoppers that came to the help of the government. I am not among those who say that there should be no control of production; as a believer in planned economy, I think that control of production will have to come. But I think the government is getting at the problem from the wrong end. The Prime Minister suggests that there must be a balance between production and consumption, and that we must therefore limit production. I think we ought to have a try at expanding consumption, because there are undoubtedly large numbers of consumers the world over who cannot obtain access to the supplies of wheat which they might readily use, and if there is to be an international policy to reduce production,

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
surely it should be possible to have some sort of international policy to increase consumption. If we are to have a reduction in production it will prove disastrous unless accompanied by other measures; I think we shall have to have other measures as well.
The Prime Minister the other day spoke of being guided by business interests. I am not at all sure that the business men are convinced that this reduction in production is a very good thing. On October 12, addressing a public gathering at Saskatoon, the Prime Minister said: "Would you not rather have one bushel of wheat you can sell for a dollar than two bushels you cannot sell for fifty cents?" Everyone will agree to that proposition. But there is no guarantee in the agreement either that the farmers will be able to sell or that they will be able to get a price. An editorial in Canadian Business, published by the Canadian Chambers of Commerce, and appearing in October, put the matter thus:
The government has guaranteed to limit exports to 200 million bushels, but in return has not received any guarantee for the sale of that or even a lesser quantity. It is also claimed that with the quantities of wheat available there is little likelihood of prices reaching, in the near future, at any rate, a figure necessitating a fulfilment of the tariff revision obligations of the importing countries.
I was very much interested in the comment of the Free Press, which is not exactly favourable to reduction. The Free Press of January 20, 1934, admits that:
-the Alberta farmers have an air-tight case. ... If the Canadian government proposes to make itself responsible for the quantity of wheat grown and sold in the dominion, it must guarantee an income to the farmers, whose right to compete freely as producer and seller it abridges.
These, I think, are some of the other measures that will have to be enacted supplementary to the control of production.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Is the hon. gentleman overlooking the fact that provision is made in the agreement for also increasing consumption in the consuming countries?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not sure how far that goes. I know that some of the consuming countries were present, but I have not seen any indication that there will be any increase in consumption from Europe.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is in the
agreement.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is a reference to it. The speech announces another loan. That is a still heavier mortgage on Canada. The public debt of Canada, includ-
[Mr. Woodsworth.!
ing federal, provincial, municipal debts and those of public corporations, amounts now to $8,652,727,000. These figures are taken from the report of the Royal Commission on Banking. Our population is a little over ten millions, and this means $800 per head. At 5 per cent it would represent $40 a year interest per head of population. If we take the average family of five, that would mean $200 a year that we have to pay in interest charges on the public debt. This is an appalling amount and I should like to suggest that whether the present government or the official opposition is in power, to say nothing of our group ever being in power, that money will not ultimately be paid; it cannot be paid. On New Year's Day I remember on the front page of one of our city papers there appeared a photograph of twin babies born on that day. I would like to have a cartoon made and to hang around the neck of each of those two babies a little tag bearing the words "Eight hundred dollars mortgage." Those two children started out in life on New Year's Day, each mortgaged with S800 of public debt, to say nothing of the over-capitalized industrial debt which bears so heavily on each one of us in this country.


Mr. MORAUD:: They might have the $800 coming to them.


James Shaver Woodsworth: They might have.
There is that much in resources, but it is not available.
I am glad to say that one of the new members recognizes the problem; the new member for Mackenzie (Mr. MacMillan) according to a dispatch by Mr. Hart to the Winnipeg Free Press of October 13 last, said:
Conscription of wealth to wipe out Canada's burden of debt was advocated by J. A. MacMillan, Liberal Candidate in Mackenzie riding, while speaking at a public meeting held here Thursday night.
He gave figures with regard to this heavy debt and then went on to say:
I am not an extremist, hut I believe that the same authority that came into our homes during the war and took our sons from the knees of their mothers, because there was a national emergency, should not he afraid to take similar steps to bring to the aid of the nation all surplus wealth. We conscripted men, why not money? There is now another national emergency that will have to be faced resolutely and squarely, if the country is to weather the storm. One of the ways out of the difficulty would be to get rid of the terrible burden of interest by paying off a substantial portion of the national debt, and this can only be done by conscription of wealth.
I welcome that statement from the new member for Mackenzie, but I should like to ask: Does the leader of the opposition (Mr-

The Address-Mr. Marcil
Mackenzie King) agree? The Liberal party rather puzzles me. Only a few months ago the Hon. Vincent Massey, president of the National Liberal Federation, speaking at Lake Couchiching conference on The New Economic Nationalism, said:
It's a difficult world to live in; we are witnessing the very transition between old' laissez-faire improvising ways of doing things, and a tightly planned modern state system. We have to plan our own recovery in this easy-going country of ours, our own reconstruction, our own relationship to this new world.
And again:
The primary conflict is not therefore isolation versus internationalism but planning versus improvisation, and in this trouble planning will, I believe, be victorious.
Once again:
It must suffice for me to say that national planning will have to be the foundation of Canada's international relations. Old conceptions of government must give place to new.
Needless to say, I heartily agree, but I ask: Does the leader of the opposition agree? That is the question?


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the forty minute rule which applies to the ordinary member deprives me of the pleasure of following the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) over the ground which he has covered, as I had already prepared some notes on which I desire to speak referring to the portion of the country which I represent. Opportunity, however, may be given us later on in the session to refer to some of the points raised by the hon. member who lately has laid before the country a new policy which has startled many parts of it and has not been accepted as thoroughly, freely or quickly as probably he had expected.
The old custom that was in existence when I first came into the house, I see, still prevails, of congratulating the mover and the seconder of the address. A couple of days ago the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) came over to my desk to remind me that he and I had had the honour of sitting in parliament for thirty-eight sessions. This is our thirty-eighth session. We are the sole survivors of the parliament of 1900, and looking over the Parliamentary Companion some time ago I was amazed to note that 1,080 members have gone through parliament since the Minister of Justice and I had the honour of being elected for the first time, he for South Wellington and I for Bonaventure. He moved the address and
I had the honour of seconding his motion. I am glad Providence has been kind to us that we have both been able to pass through all this turmoil and stress through which Canada has passed during the last thirty-four years we have been here and in which period thirty-eight sessions have been held. I congratulate the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) who, as an active young man, came into parliament last election, and the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) on the way in which they accomplished the difficult task which they had to perform. Moving and seconding the address is not always as pleasant a duty as it might be, but in their case they acquitted themselves well in what was a hard task to perform. .
Reading over the speech from the throne and looking back to the program of the present government and its actions since it came into power in 1930, I recalled the first election in which I took part officially. The famous election of 1878 which terminated on September 17, and by which honest Alexander Mackenzie was beaten at the polls on the so-called national policy. I had the honour on that day of being returning officer and representative to a certain extent of Hon. Mr. Mcrcier who ran in the county of St. Hyacinthe and was defeated by the present Judge Tellier, now dean of the Quebec bench, a retired judge, on the great question of the national policy when Canada went back on the tariff for revenue and took up Sir John A. Macdonald and his colleagues after their escapade of the Canadian Pacific railway scandal, entrusting them again with the government of this country under the old banner of protection and high tariff. I have no time to go back to what protection did or to what was called then an infant Industry. When Sir John A. Macdonald delivered his speech in the house he started to qualify this protection as being intended for the infant industry. Canada was then a different country from what it is to-day. A long time has elapsed since then. Our population has increased; our revenue has increased; our standing in the eyes of the world is vastly different, but our liabilities, responsibilities and the burdens which we have to carry have also greatly increased.
When Sir John A. Macdonald, great statesman that he was, appealed to the Canadian nation for support on hiis policy, he appealed to them naturally with what at the time was the most pressing appeal that could be made.
The Address-Mr. Marcil

There was unemployment in the country. He promised to give the people employment, to open factories, to give Canadians the control of the Canadian market, he promised to bring back prosperity to Canada. Alexander Mackenzie had refused to raise the low tariff we had then for revenue purposes, because he thought the manufacturers of Canada were well enough protected at that time and that it was not fair to bleed the consumer for the benefit of the manufacturer, so rather than go into this new adventure of protection and higher tariffs that Sir John took up Mackenzie was beaten at the polls. Sir John took up protection, and we had protection with a vengeance, although nothing compared with that of 1930. It was a boon for the infant industries, they grew, and the Liberal party complained year after year that this protection, instead of being reduced as the infant industries grew, continued to increase. Then in 1896 the blast came. Canada was on the rocks. Protection in Canada was as dead as a doornail. The Canadian west was almost given up, the Canadian Pacific was running its trains with no revenue, Canada in fact was in a retrograde position. That was the effect of protection after its trial from 1878 to 1896.
Then we had the Liberal boom. Why had we that Liberal boom? Because Laurier opened the doors to our trade; Laurier, with Fielding, brought about the British preference, and Canada boomed. In 1911 I had the honour of occupying your chair, Mr. Speaker, and I remember as well as though it were yesterday, when Fielding and Paterson offered the Reciprocity treaty to this house. The only thing that- could 'be said against it was that it was a dangerous thing to deal with Americans, and that Canada was doing well enough alone, and matters Should be left as they were.
In 1911 the Reciprocity treaty was turned down. But there is no man in Canada today who knows conditions and is willing to be frank but will admit that Canada committed a grievous mistake at that time. When the right hon. Prime Minister, whose talents no one would deny, whose devotion to his party, and I hope to his country, is unquestioned, took up the leadership of the Conservative party I looked back to the days of Sir John A. Macdonald to see how the programs compared. I realized that he was making the same appeal that Sir John had made in 1878: "I will give you the Canadian market,
I will make Canadians masters of their own market"! He did that, but since Canadians 
have been masters of their own market Canadians have no money to buy the products produced in Canada. The present Prime Minister repeated Sir John A. Macdonald's program, took up the same cry, and with the same result; he secured office. The people trusted to what he said, every man is anxious to get a job when he is out of work, every manufacturer desires to get a market if the market he has is not satisfactory. But the failure that came to Sir John's policy has come much more quickly to the policy of the present Prime Minister, because conditions have changed from what they were in 1878. Communications to-day are different, countries are linked together by rail, water and air, the telegraph and the radio. Such was not the case in 1878. When I heard the Prime Minister in 1930 move these high tariffs, my mind wandered back to the days when Wilfrid Laurier and Alexander Mackenzie and Richard Cartwright and Mills and Davis and Fielding and Blair and all those stalwarts of the Liberal party fought day and night against such policies as being suicidal to Canada. High tariffs will never suit Canada, with its immense resources, its enormous territory and its great future. The mistake the Prime Minister made in bringing about this new policy of his had been committed in the United States by the Republican party. The Republican party had closed the doors and raised the walls against other countries, and wanted to subsist to themselves. What was the result? When Hoover appealed to the people last March he faced an army of 14,000,000 unemployed out of a population of 120,000,000. When the Prime Minister went to the country lie knew there were 100,000 unemployed in Canada. How many are there to-day? How many were there last year? I am willing to admit that if the Liberal party had been in office during the last three years with the same policy that our friends now have in force we would have had the same results. But if the Liberal party had been in power we would not have had that policy. We would not have closed the doors, we would have continued to do business as we had in the past. The leader of the opposition gave figures; I have no time to refer to figures, but our trade has dropped $2,000,000 a day since the present administration has been in office. Is it any wonder there is hardship in this country.
I represent one of ithe oldest) parts of Canada. It was on the point of Gospe, four hundred years ago next July, that Jacques Cartaer landed in North America and took

The Address-Mr. Marcil
possession of this northern part of it in the name of the Icing of France, and erected thereon the cross of civilization. That was the discovery of Canada, and I hope the present government will see to it that the four hundredth anniversary of this great event in the history of this country is properly commemorated. I know representations have already been made to the government. Dates such as this should not be forgotten and should not be allowed to pass unnoticed.
I have had the honour of representing the county of Gaspe for thirty-four years out of the forty-two years it has given its allegiance to the Liberal party. I declare that never have I known conditions to exist in the Gaspe peninsula such as have existed during the last two or three years. When I went down there last year we had been talking about controlling the production of wheat in western Canada, but there were families of poor fishermen on the Gaspe coast who had no bread to eat. Some have no bread this winter, they are subsisting on fish and potatoes-when they can get them. They have no work; our lumber industry is dead, our shanties closed, our mills idle, our fish selling ait one or two cents a pound. We have no markets of any kind. We talk about central banks, talk about the control of currency, talk about the amalgamation of railways, talk about all these hundred questions that come before us, but what is the cause of all our trouble? The cause is that we have no markets for what we produce and the policy of this government has made us lose what markets we had. That is the cause of the whole trouble. Find a market for what the farmer produces, for what the fisherman produces, for the product of the miner and the lumberman, and your troubles are solved.
When the Prime Minister came into this house in 1911 I had been here eleven years before that time. He came with wild denunciations of reciprocity with the United States. Is there anything more foolish than to condemn such a policy? Are we not destined forever to have dealings with our great neighbour? The great natural market of this country ds the United States. As the United States prospers so will Canada prosper, and as long as the United States does not prosper no prosperity is possible to this country. I am a British subject, I was bom a British subject, and in the words of one of my great countrymen, I shall die a British subject. But never forget, Mr. Speaker, that in matters of trade we are talking business and not of political allegiance. Whatever our
business may be with the British Empire and the sister dominions it will be always infinitesimal compared to what it should be, what it might be and what it ought to be with the United States of America. Give us the American market to-day; give us the market Laurier, Fielding and Paterson obtained, and immediately you annex 120,000,000 people to this country. My hon. friend from Manitoba who has sait here with me for many years is interested in live stock. Give him the American market and see what will become of the live stock business.


Mr. MULLINS:: Hogs?


Charles Marcil: Yes, anything; give us the American market and you will see that Canada will change overnight.


Henry Alfred Mullins: You lost it, not we.


Charles Marcil: Sir Wilfrid Laurier went down in 1911, but thank God he went down fighting for a good cause. He fell fighting for the noblest cause ever advanced in this country. Even now, Mr. Speaker, to his eternal memory let it be said that his name is never mentioned in this house except by way of eulogy and in defence of the great principles which he initiated and brought before the Canadian people.
The cause for which Sir Wilfrid Laurier fell is just as important to-day as it was then. How can Canada prosper if the United States does not prosper? How can Canada hope to get along without the United States? Down in my constituency we have no markets for our fish, our lumber or our agricultural products. Thousands of our men are unemployed; they write to me every day and say, "Marcil, you are an old member of parliament. Is there no means by which you can bring about an appeal to the people so that we can have an election and change the political system of Canada? The present system is ruining us. We cannot stand it any longer. We have no work and nothing to eat." When I went to my constituency last summer the first man I met said, "Can't you give me a chance to earn a dollar? I have not seen a dollar for a year." What I say is absolutely true; if the government doubt it let them bring on a by-election in Bona-venture county or in any part of Canada and they will find out that I am correct.
I should like to correct a mistake which the Prime Minister inadvertently made the other day. The constituency of Restigouche-Madawaska adjoins my constituency; we are only separated by the Restigouehe river. The right hon. gentleman said that Restigouche-Madawaska had not elected a Conservative
The Address-Mr. Marcil

since 1896, blit that was a slip. In 1925 Mr. Culligan defeated Mr. Michaud in that constituency, and in 1930 Mi. Cormier was elected, so that from 1896 until 1930, in five elections there were three Liberals and two Conservatives returned. Apparently that is good fighting ground. But here is a remarkable fact. This county, which in 1930 elected a Conservative by a majority of five hundred, turned around and defeated the candidate of the same party by a majority of six thousand, and the Conservative candidate lost his deposit. The candidate of the party led by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) was defeated just as badly. The Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) came into my county last summer and warned the people against the coalition that was being formed between the C.C.F. and the Liberals. I am sorry the Solicitor General is not here; of course he was not sincere in what he said, but he warned the good people of Bonaventure not to vote Liberal because the Liberal party were working hand in hand with the C.C.F. The result was quite unexpected, of course.
There are other matters to which I should like to refer, Mr. Speaker, with regard to my constituency. No doubt in the last few days the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) has noticed that the eastern part of Canada has suffered from the most severe snowstorms in its history. They say that such a condition has not prevailed in the eastern part of Quebec and the maritime provinces for twenty-five years. No less than four of the. crack trains of the Canadian National railways were tied up at one time by snow in the Matapedia valley, a large part of which is in my constituency. Of course I am not blaming the government for this.


Mr. MANION:: It is the only thing we
have not been blamed for.


Charles Marcil: Snow is the only thing we
have in abundance down there, and that abundance comes from providence. There is something that could be done by the Department of Railways, however. The minister is always very pleasant and agreeable, and judging from the number of speeches which he has to deliver all over the country-and his speeches are always interesting and entertaining-he is one of the most popular members of the administration. During the recess I followed his advice and arranged a meeting with Mr. Appleton, the manager of the eastern lines of the Canadian National railways, at Matapedia.
Here are the circumstances, Mr. Speaker. When we took over the Gaspe railway the

people of the province of Quebec, who had built this railway as a provincial line, expected that it would remain part and parcel of the Quebec system of railways. We had the terminal at Matapedia, which was the connecting point between the Gaspe railway and the Canadian National railways. When this railway was taken over the late Sir Henry Thornton promised us that he would give it a fair trial, and he left the terminal at Matapedia. Shortly after his sad departure, however, the terminal was changed overnight to Campbellton. So we have a train that runs two hundred miles through the Gaspe basin to Matapedia; then it goes back thirteen miles to Campbellton, over the ground that it covered an hour before, to hand over the mail and deliver passengers. The only alternative is to leave the other passengers stranded on the platform at Matapedia until the train comes back again.
All the chambers of commerce in the province of Quebec, the commercial travellers' association, the Solicitor General and God knows who else have protested. There has been a war on for a year past between the Post Office Department and the railway administration with regard to the cost of carrying these mails from Matapedia to Campbellton and back again. I am told that it cost the Post Office Department $2,000 extra last year to carry these mails down and back. The Postmaster General has been appealed to, as have the Solicitor General and the Minister of Marine, who represent the province of Quebec. Now I want to lay my case before the Minister of Railways. No doubt he will tell me that he has nothing to do with the matter, but that will not work with the people. I know the minister is a friend of the railway-men; his candidate in Restigouche-Mada-waska was a railway man, but now the people of Matapedia want this question settled.*
We all know that Mr. Hungerford, who is an experienced railway man of high standing, has been promoted-and fairly, I think-to the position of president of the Canadian National railways. He should view this question as it ought to be viewed. Here is the oldest province in the Dominion of Canada, a province which, with Ontario, carries about three-quarters of the burden of this country. We built this railway; we were given poor service for many years. Now we have an improved service, and we want to keep what properly belongs to us. Why should the terminal be moved from Matapedia to Campbellton, thirteen miles out of the way in New Brunswick? They say it was done because of economy. When Mr. Appleton attended a public meeting in Matapedia he wanted us to

The Address-Mr. Marcil
appeal to the Board of Railway Commissioners, but how can you expect a lot of poor people in a village down in Bonaventure to undertake to fight the Canadian National railways and prove that it is cheaper to run trains to Matapedia than to Campbellton? We asked the railway commission if they would not inquire into the matter, and they said: No, we cannot unless we get an appeal to us. The people of the district would not appeal because they say that once a decision is rendered it will never be reversed. I ask the Minister of Railways to take that matter up and do justice to the people of that district. Here are people who have had a terminus in their village for the last forty years. It is taken away without any cause or reason, without any benefit or advantage, and at great trouble and greater cost. Why should that condition of affairs continue to prevail?
I hope the Minister of Railways will change it.
They talk of economy on the railways, Mr. Speaker. Last December there was an unfortunate accident in my county on the Canadian National railway. An engine driver, John Allard, who had been in the service of the road for forty years, was taking his train through a snow storm, his engine being coupled to the snowplough in .front of it. His engine was hauling a long train, and when the snowplough came to the trestle at St. Charles de Caplan the snowplough toppled over and fell into the Bale des Chaleurs, bringing the locomotive and tender down with it. Poor John Allard lost his life. Fortunately the link between the tender and the passenger cars broke and the train remained on the track; but if that had not happened, instead of one life being lost, one hundred lives might have been lost. I am told that this was contrary to railway practice. Is it customary to couple these snowploughs to passenger trains? Is it not rather the practice to send out the snowplough followed by a caboose to clear the track? If the practice that resulted in the loss of this man's life is allowed to prevail on the Gaspe railway, where bridges have to be crossed over the river almost every ten miles, and bridges with difficult approaches, sharp curves and so on, such an accident is likely to happen again. If these snowploughs have to be sent forward before the passenger train comes along, let them be sent with a caboose, and not placed ahead of the passenger train.


Robert James Manion: May I say to my hon.
friend that to-morrow I shall very gladly send a copy of his speech to Mr. Justice Fullerton, the chairman of the board of trustees, and ask him to give the matter every consideration.
Of course, my hon. friend knows that I have no control whatsoever in either of these matters that he has brought up.


Charles Marcil: I agree, but the position
I take is this: When parliament speaks it speaks for all, and when I first came to this house, a member of parliament was somebody and a minister was somebody. When I saw Laurier or Blair or some other minister, what I said for my county was the law, and I was held responsible by the minister for what was done in my constituency, and the trust was well reposed, I think, because the people have held me there for thirty-four years. But now they say: Marcil, you are an older man; you are not as smart as you used to be.
I tell them that conditions have changed.
Talk about Mr. Justice Fullerton-there is just one instance of the change that has taken place. Parliament has abdicated its functions in respect of the railways into the hands of Judge Fullerton. Llis salary has not been cut. I must congratulate him upon that. His salary was raised-


Robert James Manion: His personal salary was
not cut, but the salary, and allowances, of Sir Henry Thornton was higher than his by $125,000.'


Charles Marcil: Sir Henry Thornton is
dead and the other man is alive. There is another instance,, Mr. Speaker, of what parliament has been doing. When you talk to the common people of railway commissions, board of railway commissioners, tariff commissions, soldiers' commissions, land commissions, and so on, they say:	What is the use
of your going to Ottawa? My reply is, Well, I am going there merely to vote the money that is necessary to carry on these commissions. As a matter of fact, we have abdicated all of our powers. We have no power at all. Parliament to-day is administered by order in council. There is a notice on the order paper to-day by the Prime Minister, who is going to have an inquiry into the spread between producer and consumer. The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil), who moved the address in reply, talked about New Zealand butter. He was elected on New Zealand butter. Canadian butter at the time of his election was selling at thirty cents, but last year in my constituency the farmers got nine cents for their butter, and they are * dying now for an opportunity to vote the other way. The quality of that butter selling at nine cents a pound is firSt-class because I may say that the butter of the parish of Bonaventure took first prize for the province of Quebec.
The Address-Mr. Marcil


Mr. GOBEIL:: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he knows what was the average price of butter for 1933?


Charles Marcil: On the market it is selling at from twenty to twenty-two cents. That is what we pay for it here.


Samuel Gobeil: That is not an answer to my question. I asked if the hon. member knew the average price for butter in 1933?


Charles Marcil: I am telling you what my
farmers get for their butter in Bonaventure, and it is about nine cents a pound, and if the hon. gentleman wants to know their feeling in the matter he might go down there and consult them and see what they think about it.
In the time left at my disposal I am unable to refer to the speech from the throne at any great length, except to say this:	My
conception of the duty of the government is to try to undo what was done in 1930. In 1930, in order to carry out the promises which they had made in the election campaign, something had to be done, and the government said: We will raise the tariff. They tried to make the people believe that Canadian trade would expand under their policy and that the number of the unemployed would be decreased. That policy has been a dead failure, Mr. Speaker.
As I said a moment ago, the first election I took part in was on September 17, 1878.
I have been in public life for over fifty years, and I may say that in the thirty-four years I have been in this parliament, never has a Canadian government made such a terrible fiasco as the present government. It is not because of want of clever men, because there are many clever men in the cabinet. Right opposite me, for instance, sits the former premier of Nova Scotia, and I see also my old friend the Minister of Justice, as well as many other clever men. The fiasco is due to a wrong policy-this wrong policy of hemming Canada in with high tariff walls. We are spending $250,000 on the League of Nations every year, and what has the league been telling us all the time? They have said that these high tariffs, these trade barriers, promote economic war, and that economic war leads to military war. Why are we squandering money in sending representatives to the League of Nations and then going contrary to its recommendations?
I want to congratulate the leader of the opposition on the speech he made on the League of Nations and on his magnificent speech in this house the other day which it 
took four hours on the part of the Prime Minister to try to demolish. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this tariff policy of Canada must be changed. We must lower our tariffs and open our gates to the outside world as a whole. We must have relations not only with the British Empire but with the whole world. We must have relations with the United States of America, which is our greatest neighbour.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) tells us that each of us carries a mortgage of $800 around his neck. This government does not want to deal with the Americans, but it is ready enough to enter into a treaty with them to give over our greatest heritage, the greatest asset that Canada possesses, that system of waterways in the St. Lawrence and the great lakes. This government wants to go into partnership with the Americans to. bring about the development of waterpower and navigation. There is no sane man in this country who ever navigated salt water-I am sorry the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) is not present at the moment- who will tell you that any ocean-going steamer will ever go up beyond Montreal. It is true that small steamers may go as far as Duluth. When Jacques Cartier and Maisonneuve selected Montreal as the head of navigation, they were wise in their day. Beyond that point you can have lake and river navigation, but the large ocean-going steamers will stop at Montreal. Nothing goes beyond Montreal. The tendency is towards the building of larger ships and at the present time many ships cannot go beyond Quebec. Why should we enter into a treaty of this kind at a time when we have no money to meet our engagements and when not only the dominion but the provinces are weighed down with burdens. I heard the Prime Minister state the other day that we had spent $141,000,000 in helping the provinces give relief to the unemployed. I can remember the days when this country had a budget not as large as that. The city of Ottawa has 6,000 families on relief. Practically under the Peace Tower which honours this building we have a refuge which has been running day and night for the last three years. Hundreds of thousands of people out of work have been fed here and the same thing applies all over the dominion. Is that not enough to open the eyes of any man who has a desire to see what is going on?
We must reverse our policy and the sooner we do it the better. If the Prime Minister wants to know what is the feeling of the country, let him go before the people. In

The Address-Mr. Marcil
all the years I have sat in this chamber it has always been customary for a government to go to the people at the end of four years, but the Prime Minister has had five sessions. There was only one other government that committed the mistake of not going to the people at the end of four years. That was the Tapper government of 1896. They had six sessions and hon. members know what happened to them-they were put out of office.' We must reverse our policy as soon as possible. We should have a tariff for revenue purposes only. We should carry on the policies that Laurier and Fielding delegated to us when they left public life.
Hon. members should remember the position which Canada occupied in 1911 and compare it with our present position. In those days the St. Lawrence had been transformed into one of the great waterways of the world. Hon. members will remember the map of the British Empire which was printed in red upon the stamp which that grand old man of Ontario, Sir William Muloek, had accepted by this house. I cannot mention that name without recalling that out of that first government which I had the honour of supporting there are to-day but two survivors, Sir William Muloek and Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, the former Lieutenant Governor of Quebec. These men did something for Canada. They placed Canada on the map. They had a policy which was acceptable to other nations. When Laurier shared with Queen Victoria the honours of the Jubilee in London and when She pressed upon him the acceptance of the title which had been conferred, Canada had entered upon the great golden era which extended from 1896 to 1911. We had free markets and free intercourse with other nations except for purposes of revenue.
We cannot impose high tariffs without their being beneficial to someone. If they are beneficial to the government, they are not beneficial to the consumer. If they are not beneficial to the government, they are not beneficial to anyone. A tariff is nothing but a tax. If revenues are falling, as they are to-day, what is the reason? It is because the tariff is too high and therefore there are no importations. When there are no importations, there is no revenue, and when there is no revenue, then we must borrow and keep on borrowing. We go to London and float a loan for S75,000,000. Is there any country in the world that would refuse to lend money to Canada? Canada is one of the most promising countries in the world. We occupy the best part of the North American com tinent and we can pay all that we borrow.
The hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson) mentioned immigration. I remember when his predecessors John Haggart, Sir John A. Macdonald and others contended that the future of this country rested upon the immigration policy of the Conservative party. They endeavoured to bring immigrants to this country but they had not the Canada which Laurier made. They had not a cheap country in which to live. When Laurier went out of office he had succeeded in creating two new provinces in the west, Alberta and Saskatchewan. As Deputy Speaker of this house I had the honour of signing the bills creating those new provinces. Laurier put over a million new people into the west. These were consumers and they are the mainstay of the -west to-day. Our right hon. friend represents Calgary, but what was Calgary in those days? What were Edmonton and Winnipeg? The west was a wilderness except for the narrow strip of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Laurier developed the west along with Sifton who was in charge of the immigration policy. They brought a million strangers into the west and those people are represented to-day in this house. The fathers of some of our present members were numbered among the newcomers of those days. Is there anyone who will say that we have not room for 25,000,000 or 50,000,000 people? If the country on the other side of the line can harbour 120,000.000 with practically the same territory, why should we be content with only 10,000,000? But we have reached this point: instead of expanding and developing, instead of going towards the future with buoyant revenues and buoyant trade and a cheerful population, we are oppressed and weighed down, Our people are dissatisfied and discontented. Policies are being carried out which were never heard of in the days of Macdonald or Laurier. Canada has been changed because of a false fiscal policy.
I believe in the sincerity and optimism of my fellow members on the other side but I reiterate what I have always said, their present policy is a false policy. That fact was decided by Sir John A. Macdonald, the greatest Roman of them all, and when his great successor, Sir Charles Tupper, came into office in 1896, the national policy of those days was as dead as a doornail. That was replaced with the policy of Fielding and Laurier, a policy of reciprocity with the British Empire and with the United States and-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member but he has exceeded his forty-minutes.
The Address-Mr. Golding


Mr. W. H. GOLDING (South Huron):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to continue the debate on the address let me at the outset extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Gobeil) and the seconder (Mr. Barber) of the address. I think we all appreciate the fact that the task assigned to these two hon. members was not an easy one. I think we all agree that they endeavoured to present the views of the government in a clear, moderate and forceful manner and are deserving of congratulation. While we appreciate the splendid efforts put forth by these hon. members, we feel that we cannot agree with their views with regard to the many debatable points which they have brought to the attention of the house.
It is now nearly four years since this government took office in 1930; this is the fifth session and we have had a fifth speech from the throne. Personally I have been keenly interested in reading the speeches delivered year after year by His Excellency since this government took office. I have noticed particularly that upon each occasion great care is taken to emphasize the efforts being made by the government to restore confidence and promote prosperity in our country. I do not think that I am in any way exaggerating when I say that great things were and still are expected from this government, and for that reason the eyes of the Canadian people, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, have been turned with expectancy and hope from year to year to the contents of the speech from the throne. That is particularly true this year, because, after all, hope deferred maketh the heart sick; and as far as the hopes that have been raised by previous speeches from the throne are concerned, I think the Canadian people, and indeed the members of the government itself, must admit that they are far from having been realized.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has accused the Liberal party of trying to capitalize the present unrest and depression. I think it was unfortunate that he should be the one to make this charge, because I have a very distinct recollection of the right hon. gentleman himself, in 1930, going through the country from one end to the other making various speeches, and if ever anyone endeavoured to capitalize unrest it was the Prime Minister himself. It did seem to be the policy, the planned policy I should say, of the Conservative party during the 1930 federal election to endeavour to saddle upon the shoulders of the Liberal government all the responsibility for the conditions that existed at that time. It seemed to me that

every Conservative speaker and every Conservative candidate had been schooled to the fact that their duty was to attribute all our woes and ills and grievances to the government of that day. The depression that existed at that time was, in the expressed opinion of our hon. friends opposite, attributable to one source and one source only, and that was, as the Prime Minister himself described it, that band of mercenaries who had betra3'ed Canada for their own personal-gain. We all remember that famous statement, "Nine years before the great betrayal; it did not take Judas that long." That was the language used towards those who then occupied the treasury benches; that was the chivalry shown towards those who were bearing the responsibility of government at that time.
Now, the only comment I wish to make on that is this, that I sincerely hope the time will never come when I shall have to use language such as that with respect to our hon. friends opposite or anyone else. I think we ought to try to give those who do not agree with us with regard to our economic situation credit at any rate for honesty of purpose. We were all anxious, I am sure, to hear the speech from the throne this year to find out what new promises or what new hopes would be contained therein. Before going to previous speeches from the throne, I may say that during the 1930 campaign, while our hon. friends did endeavour to belittle and ridicule the government at that time, they also set themselves up as the ones who were able to lead Canada and the Canadians out of all their economic difficulties, and in order to convince the people that they were capable of doing so, many promises were made which have never been fulfilled but which I think have created such a burden for the government that it now totters beneath its self-imposed load.
It is a well known fact that this government took office with a tremendous burden of responsibility resting upon it. A large part of that burden, perhaps, was not of their own making, but I do think that the greater part of the burden was of their own making, owing to the many extravagant promises made; and while we know that these promises were almost, in fact quite, impossible of being carried out, nevertheless the government secured thousands upon thousands of votes by making them. I quite realize that the picture that was presented to the electorate during the 1930 campaign in regard to the situation which existed then, and which I think to a large extent no party was responsible for, was

The Address-Mr. Golding
that the Liberal party was to blame for all these conditions. It is certainly interesting to review the statements made by the government in their previous speeches from the throne. If we go back to the first session held under this administration, which opened in September 1930, we find in the speech from the throne the following words:
The necessity for dealing with exceptional economic conditions, with the resultant unemployment, has induced me to summon you at an earlier date than would otherwise be necessary. Measures will be submitted for your consideration, including amendments to the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff, which it is anticipated will do much to meet the unusual conditions which now prevail.
You will notice there that they refer to the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff, and at that session the government did introduce legislation which they believed would restore prosperity to the country. Indeed, they were simply carrying out their pre-election pledge to raise tariffs against all countries including Great Britain itself, and that of course they certainly did. Another important thing that was done then was the voting of some $20,000,000 for unemployment relief. In all fairness to the government, I am perfectly satisfied that they did believe that by putting into effect this high tariff policy, and by the action taken at that time, they would restore prosperity to our country-by using this $20,000,000 for the relief of the unemployed and by increasing employment through their tariff legislation, as well as by an effort to raise the prices of natural products. Indeed, I think they believed that by putting into effect their high tariff policy they were going to usher in for Canada a new and better day. After the close of that session, and with these new policies in effect, the people began to look with expectancy for the dawn of that better day, but to say that they were disappointed would be putting the situation very, mildly. In a few months another session rolled around, and on March 12, 1931, there appeared these words in the speech from the throne:
It will be your privilege to consider certain measures designed by my ministers to ameliorate existing conditions, to provide further means by which our people may go forward to achieve a prosperity heretofore unattained and to furnish them with all possible safeguards against a recurrence of the present subordination to world forces.
It goes on to say:
My government has explored the origins of our difficulties and is firmly of the belief that many of our problems do not arise put of world wide depression, but are antecedent to it; and that domestic factors have also largely determined the degree of economic distress from which this country is suffering.
If that statement was Drue then it is equally true now, and we on this side have endeavoured repeatedly to point out that domestic factors have largely determined the degree of economic distress from which this country has suffered during the past two or three years.
The statement was made prior to the election of 1930; it was made during the campaign and it has been made since, that the Liberal government in 1930 were not making any effort to meet the change in conditions which was taking place at that time. In direct contradiction to that I say that the then government fully recognized the fact that changing conditions abroad and existing conditions at home were affecting business in Canada, and to meet this situation they endeavoured to formulate a policy, one vastly different in spirit and details from that which was adopted by our bon. friends opposite at the short session of that same year. The Dunning budget was designed to cope with existing conditions and had certain definite objects in view which were made clear to the people by the members of the government at that time. By this an effort was made to divert trade, an action which was really forced upon the then government. Am effort was also made to lower the cost to the consumer, to lessen the cost of the implements of production to the basic producer and to lower the cost of raw materials to the manufacturer for export in order that he might be better able to compete in the markets of the world. Another vital point which had to be considered was the formulating of a policy which would at the same time assist in raising revenue. All these points were seriously considered by the them government, and notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, in my opinon the Liberal government did endeavour to formulate a policy which would cope with existing conditions at home and abroad. We all know that 'policy was never put into effect, and we on this side of the house and many people throughout the country feel that Canada was the loser by the change which took place.
It will be noticed that in the 1931 speech from the throne very little was said about world conditions; in fact our hon. friends opposite were at that time not talking about world conditions; it was the Liberal party that was responsible for everything. The speech of that year, after pointing out that the government had explored the origins of our difficulties and were convinced that many of our problems did not arise from world conditions, went on to say:

The Address-Mr. Golding

It was this belief which impelled my ministers at the emergency session of parliament held in September last to remove one of the root weaknesses in our industrial system by effecting such then possible changes in the tariff as would, in their opinion, provide substantial security against harmful world competition. Although in the interval world conditions have changed but little for the better, this tariff legislation has resulted in a marked improvement in the domestic situation.
That was part of the contents of the speech from the throne in 1931. In the third session which opened on February 4, 1932, we find the tone of the speech from the throne somewhat changed. It goes on to say:
World conditions are beyond the control of the Canadian people. But I rejoice that their resolute adherence to policies designed for the welfare of the nation has minimized the adverse influence of external economic forces. This period of trial has shown the Canadian situation to be fundamentally sound. . . . The provisions made at the last session of parliament for unemployment and farm relief are proving effective.
You are successfully meeting difficult domestic problems. Conditions are gradually improving.
In making his address a few days ago, the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) stated that during the last few years about the best that could be said was to express a pious hope that conditions would improve. This is not an expression of any pious hope; It is a positive statement made in 1932 that conditions are gradually improving. Anyone who wants to be at all fair must admit that those words were not in keeping with the situation existing at that time. When we compare the prices which prevailed in 1930 with those which prevailed in 1932 and the number of unemployed as reported in 1930 with the number reported in 1932, we cannot help wondering how anyone could say that conditions were improving. There were only two reasons for making such a statement. The first, of course, was to try to raise the hopes of the people, and the second, and I think the principal reason, was to maintain confidence in the present government.
I quite agree that it really is important that every effort should be made to keep up the spirit and morale of a nation which has had to pass through such a period of depression as Canada has faced. I presume the government will expect us to excuse them on that ground for any unwarranted note of optimism that may have been expressed in their messages to the people given from time to time through the speech from the throne. I am not going to spend much time in adversely criticizing the speech from the throne for whatever note of optimism may be found therein. But I do think the members of this

house-indeed, the Canadian people-are keenly disappointed that the government has not offered any concrete suggestion of a policy which would have at least some effect in dispelling the gloom that has prevailed in this country for some time. The government has had splendid opportunities to do effective work; as a matter of fact it has had opportunities in a national and international way that perhaps few governments ever had. There have been conferences; there were two imperial economic conferences, a world economic conference, a conference with the president of the United States; there have been federal-provincial conferences. As a matter of fact this government has probably taken part in more conferences than any other Canadian government in a like period of time. Our Canadian people did expect some .beneficial results from these conferences, which certainly provided a splendid opportunity to get this much-advertised blasting policy into operation. But it is quite evident that the blasting machine was not functioning; so we have had large expenditures of money with very little result.


Jean-François Pouliot: The result was nil.
Mr. 'GOLDING:	As we all know, the first
imperial economic conference was a failure. The second imperial economic conference, which was held in this city, afforded an opportunity for Canada and the other parts of the empire to lead the world in a campaign for a reduction of trade barriers. But, as was clearly indicated in the addresses delivered on this side of the house during the debate on the treaties, the very opposite happened. As a result of that conference not only did Canada raise her tariff against many countries, but Great Britain herself threw her hat into the arena of the tariff struggle, a struggle just as disastrous as far as trade and the restoration of normal conditions throughout the world are concerned as was the great war in its destruction of human life and property.
The Prime Minister stated here the other day, Mr. Speaker, that the trade of the world had shrunk to about one-third of what it had been previously. There could be no better evidence of the correctness of our contention as to the disastrous results that would inevitably follow high tariffs than the figures quoted by the Prime Minister. When we realize that our exports, which amounted to something over SI,144,000,000 in 1930, have fallen to possibly less than half of that figure in 1933-34, I think we ought to make a careful survey of our whole situation to ascer-

The Address-Mr. Golding
tain just what has happened to our foreign trade. I know the charge has been made by members of the government that some of these markets were lost to us during the Liberal regime. Especially has that charge been made in reference to the United States. And of course the charge is perfectly true. But why stop there; why not tell the whole story? Why not tell that it was a protectionist government in the United States which, believing as this government does in the efficacy of high tariffs, brought into being legislation which practically shut off our trade with that country? Why not go further still and examine the result of that legislation as far as the United States is concerned? Why not ask oursqlves the question:	Was that
legislation beneficial to the United States? Did it increase the price of their wheat to any considerable extent? It seems to me that the action taken by the United States in regard to our trade was just about the most suicidal thing that could have happened to that country, and the same can be said of similar action by any country.


Mr. McGIBBON:: What about the price
over there?


William Henry Golding: farm without help; how to finance the growing, harvesting and marketing of his crops; how to construct his buildings and keep them in repair; how to pay taxes, redeem mortgages, maintain interest payments, clothe, feed and educate his family, support the church and other local institutions, as well as a hundred and one other things which time does not permit me to enumerate. I have pointed out that many farmers are trying to meet all these pills with an income barely sufficient to provide for the living expenses of themselves end their families, and I feel that the improvement of farm conditions will involve to a large extent the solution of other problems such as industrial regeneration and unemployment. In view of the definite promise made by the Prime Minister that the wrongs of the Canadian people would be righted, the people in my constituency are keenly awaiting the coming of the great day of fulfilment.
As one of the great exporting nations of the world I think we all realize that we need more and more markets. In this country we do not want any policy of extreme nationalization. I think we all realize that internationally we are all interdependent, and it has been pointed out by economists and statesmen that throughout the world more than a billion people are potential consumers of our surplus products, and that with the right kind of governmental policy they can be converted into actual consumers. All the great problems that confront this country at the. present time, including farm relief, agricultural surpluses, the utilization of manufacturing productivity, unemployment, the maintenance of our standard of living, our continued development and progress and international goodwill with resultant international peace, all seem to me to be bound up in this great problem of the expansion of our trade. I am persuaded that not until we start trading with one another, buying and selling and selling and buying, need we expect any economic recovery. No inflation, deflation, reflation or any other kind of flation will be of any avail until we have a buy-and-sellation.
I do not want to conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, without making reference to a speech delivered in Toronto by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) on which I congratulate my hon. friend. I have had some correspondence with the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce, and I am certainly pleased to find from the order paper that the government is going to appoint a special committee to investigate some of the matters

that were referred to by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Among the questions into which they are to inquire I find:
(d) the methods and system prevailing in the marketing of live stock and animal products for domestic consumption and export, and the extent to which the present system affords or restricts opportunity for fair returns to producers.
I am very glad indeed that the government are going to make a thorough investigation into this question. I have had a good many complaints with regard to shipping facilities available in connection with sending cattle to the old country, and I am endeavouring to take up this matter with the department. I think hon. members will appreciate the situation in which the farmer finds himself. If he is not getting a square deal it is absolutely impossible for him to defend himself in any way. He is not getting prices that will warrant his taking any action against anyone at all. I think it is the duty of the government to have a thorough investigation made in order to see if the farmer is being given a fair deal, and I hope that will be done.
With regard to the speech from the throne, and particularly with regard to the proposed central bank, of course we have no idea what position the government is going to take. This central bank has been advocated by the Liberal party for some time, and we on this side will simply have to wait until the bill is brought down to see whether or not we can approve of the central bank system proposed by the government.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: May I crave your indulgence to have it called six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Mr. Speaker, in continuing the debate on the speech from the throne I assure you, sir, that I have no intention of emulating or trying to excel some of the marathon speeches which thus far have been given forth in this chamber. The government has moved through its accredited representatives:
That an address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General, to offer the humble thanks of this house to His Excellency for the gracious speech which he has been pleased to make to both houses of parliament.
That is the formal motion which is now before the chair, and I congratulate the mover

The Address-Mr. Carmichael
(Mr. Gobeil) and the seconder (Mr. Barber) on their addresses in placing this motion before us.
From the official opposition has come an amendment to the main motion moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), as follows:
That the following be added to the motion: "We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's present advisers do not possess the confidence of the country."
There is no mistaking the intention of this amendment. It is a straight no-confidence motion and, of course, if carried would mean that the government should forthwith tender its resignation, and the country would be faced with a general election. From this corner of the chamber has come forth an amendment to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), who leads the so-called Cooperative Commonwealth Federation forces-an amalgamation of farmer, labour, socialist forces, et al, we might say-called the Cocofeds out in our country. They have proposed that the amendment be amended by inserting after the word "advisers" the words "and official opposition". The amendment as amended would then read:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's present advisers and official opposition do not possess the confidence of this house or of the country.
Of course, this subamendment if carried would also mean the defeat of the government. It would even have a more far-reaching effect than that. It would mean that the country would have no confidence in either the Conservative or the Liberal forces to carry on government in this country, and the natural conclusion would be that the only force capable of carrying on the affairs of the state would be the representatives of the Cocofeds.
I have been listening to the debate thus far and had not proposed taking any part in it until this afternoon, and then I purposed doing so because I asked myself the question, what was going to be my own action when these various proposals were put before us for recording our vote. I represent a large rural constituency in that great agricultural province of Saskatchewan. I have a population of somewhere around 35,000. They are not all able to be here, and I think they expect me fairly well to represent what would be the majority wish of those citizens.
In order to put my position fairly before the house I shall have to go back a few years into political history and state that in 1921 I was first elected to this chamber under what was called the Progressive association
in our province. In my own constituency we had the Kindersley Progressive organization, which was affiliated with the Saskatchewan Progressive association. I was first elected under that organization known by that name.
In the general election of 1925 I was again elected by that same organization under the same name-Progressive.	In 1926 I again
had the honour of being elected by the people of that constituency as a Progressive. In 1930 our organization changed its name to the Saskatchewan Farmers Political Association, but it did not change its aims, its objects or its ideals. They were still the same as those of the old Progressive organization; that is, they were anti-party. They were opposed to contributions to campaign funds by moneyed interests largely for the purpose of holding a club over the party that might be elected to power. They maintained then, as they have always maintained, that each representative of the people should be elected and his campaign expenses paid by the contributions of the several electors caring to do so in the constituency. My four elections were run on that basis, and the expenses, I assure you, have been kept down to almost a minimum. In 1930 I came here representing practically the same organization, although under a different name, that I represented when I first was elected in 1921. This organization is not affiliated with the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section, and therefore is not affiliated with the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. The United Farmers of Saskatchewan have affiliated with this newer cooperative association. Therefore, as a representative of that constituency, I do not feel that I am bound by the actions of the United Farmers of my own province. Not being associated with them myself, and my organization not being affiliated with them, I naturally conclude that I am not bound to associate myself with all the views as propounded by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation leaders.
While I have every respect for the farmer and labour representatives in this corner of the house and propose to cooperate with them in so far as I possibly can, I must say most emphatically that I do not share all of their views in regard to our present economic order, or that the best way out is in a complete change of that order. I do not share those views.
Not having any particular party leanings, not being affiliated with any particular party association, I have been led to inquire into just how I was going to express myself in the
The Address-Mr. Carmichael

votes which will soon be taken. I recall back in 1927, on February 14, I had the privilege of moving a resolution in this house as foh-lows:
That, in the opinion of this house, no government should have the right to ask for a dissolution of parliament prior to completing the five-year term as provided in the British North America Act except when authorized to do so by a majority vote of the house.
I still hold that view to-day as I did then, that it should be incumbent upon a government to fulfil its full tenure of office of five years when elected by the people and sent here to do so. I do not share the view that we should immediately, on the smallest pretext arising, seek to oust the government from office and call for a general election. It is true that there might be a change on the treasury benches, but it would be a change of personnel rather than a change of conditions in the country, it would seem to me. If we were to change the Conservative administration to a Liberal administration, granting that such a change might take place-I am not assured that it will-but even though it should, I would not conclude that that change of itself would remedy conditions as they exist in the country. I made it my business before coming down here to inquire of different citizens as to what their viewpoint was in regard to a prospective general election this year, and I did not hear one person, not one, either Liberal or Conservative or of any other political stripe, say that we should have a general election this year. So far as the persons whom I interviewed are concerned, it seemed to be their opinion that elections at best are disturbing and expensive, expensive to the country and expensive to the individuals who run their own elections; and of course there is unsettlement so far as business interests throughout the country are concerned. That being the opinion expressed by some of my electors, and having my own personal opinion, I feel that the government should run the full five years. Having no political axe to grind I feel that so far as my individual support is concerned, it is up to the government to carry on. If I were to support the subamendment as proposed, it would mean that I would be asking the government to quit immediately and the official opposition to get out of the way so that the representatives in this corner of the house could be given a chance to carry on. That is what I would be saying, but I do not propose so to say.


Mr. BOURASSA:: They are not yet prepared for office.


Archibald M. Carmichael: If I were to support the amendment to the main motion, in effect I would be saying that the government should get out of the way immediately and give the official opposition in its great zeal to save the country a chance to do so. I do not feel like saying even that. I still feel that the government is strong enough to carry on for the balance of 1934 and for that portion of 1935 which would be coming to them within their five year tenure of office.
While general conditions in the country may not be quite as bad as the leader of the opposition propounded to us in his four-hour and twenty-three minute speech on Monday, while they may not be quite as good as the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) outlined to us in his almost four hour effort in reply to the leader of the opposition, I do know that in my own constituency conditions are not good. Indeed they are very bad. In the rural municipality of Kindersley, a small local unit of administration, during the winter of 19331934 there are approximately one hundred families on relief and it is estimated that the total cost up to April 1 will be $10,000.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: What is the population?


Archibald M. Carmichael: Approximately 1,500 in a nine-township unit. In the eleven or twelve-township unit of Newcombe, with a population of around 1,800, there are 188 families on relief. The secretary has advised me that the estimated cost for the 1933-34 winter up to April 1 next is $20,000. Other rural municipalities in my constituency are in practically a similar position. The town in which I reside is similarly placed with a number of families on relief. I want to assure the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson), who spoke this afternoon, that this is not because of the particular stripe of government in our province or governmental extravagances; I can assure the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) that it is not because of the economic system under which we are labouring; the conditions which we are now facing are caused by what I think would be called in legal phraseology,- an act of God. We have had an absence of rain, we have had hot winds which scorched and blistered and blasted the crops. In many cases, what little did come through in spite of the drought was eaten up by the grasshoppers. As a result, in my own immediate vicinity the yields of wheat ran two, three and four bushels to the acre, and this only with raking and scraping and scratching. With the low price of wheat, hon. members will realize how much the farmer

The Address-Mr. Pickel
had to his credit after he paid his threshing expenses. There was practically no feed in the district, hay and oats being shipped in to be purchased by the farmers under the relief scheme. This is the condition in my territory and I know it is even worse in many other parts of Saskatchewan. I had the privilege of driving over a large part of the province during the past summer and through the southern part you could find no feed, no stacks and practically nothing growing green for miles and miles except Russian thistles.
I notice the speech from the throne makes this statement:
You will be invited to consider legislation for the establishment of a central bank.
I heartily favour the intention of the government to establish a central bank in Canada. Page 98 of the report of the royal commission which was appointed to inquire into banking and currency contains some suggestions as to certain main features of the constitution of a central bank for Canada. Section 4 states that the bank should have the sole right of note issue. I trust that in the legislation to be brought forward this feature will be adhered to. So far as my own opinion goes, I would prefer to see this central bank modelled after the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. Upon twro occasions I have spoken in this house with regard to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and I recommend to the members of the government a careful study of the setup of that bank. It has had a successful operation for a period of over twenty years with each year showing increasing profits which have accrued to the state. It is distinctly a government owned and controlled bank and has the sole right of note issue in the commonwealth of Australia.
Last year we had in London what was termed an economic conference. It was internationally agreed at that conference that the metallic coverage of gold could be reduced from forty to twenty-five per cent without any country being considered as being off the so-called gold standard. I remember hearing a member of the government speaking over the radio, I believe it was the Prime Minister, make mention of that fact and state that if Canada took advantage of that provision we could issue an additional $100,000,000 of dominion notes and still be on the gold basis.
The speech from the throne also contains the following statement:
My government propose further to promote employment by expenditures on essential public works and undertakings throughout the dominion.
I should like to see these two statements linked up. I hope the government of the day will take it upon themselves to establish a central bank and give it the sole right of note issue and then put into circulation such a quantity of additional dominion notes as will take care of essential public undertakings. In so doing there would be no toll levied on the money put into circulation. We all remember that when the $35,000,000 was circulated-I believe it was less than two years ago-there was a toll of one per cent for two years exacted from the people of Canada by the private banking interests to pay them for putting that money into circulation. That was what it amounted to. There was the cost of the note issue, but the profit was one per cent on $35,000,000 for a two-year period, or $700,000, which went to the private banks for the expense of printing those notes. If that is done by our central bank, the money being circulated through that organization, which we hope will be established, there should be no such toll levied. The money could be put into circulation by paying the people who took part in public undertakings such as public buildings, bridges, highways, such as the completion of the trans-Canada highway, the deepening of the St. Lawrence, which has been talked of for some years, and the Peace River outlet, which has also been discussed in this chamber for some time. Such public undertakings could very well be carried out and paid for without the taxpayers having to raise any additional money by means of taxation. When such time comes, I assure the government and in particular the Minister of Public Works, so far as my own section of the province is concerned, I am going to be very bold in asking for some public works which will take care of the unfortunate situation as it exists in central western Saskatchewan and which will give employment to some of the people who are so very much in need of money. It will also tend to relieve the situation that now prevails in that part of the province.


Mr. F. H. PIGKEL (Brome-Missisquoi):: In the first place, may I congratulate the mover (Mr. Gobeil) and the seconder (Mr. Barber) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
During the last session of this house the committee on agriculture was authorized to hold an investigation into the milk situation then existing between the producers and the distributors. Much evidence was adduced relating to the pernicious and oppressive methods adopted by the distributors in several of the large consuming centres of the do-
The Address-Mr. Picket

minion., and a report based on that evidence, of a highly condemnatory and scandalous nature, against the distributors was found and duly filed. I presume that as regards any real benefit that has resulted so far, from that investigation, the report has probably been systematically pigeon-holed, and forgotten in conformity with the usual procedure with respect to the findings of commissions. The evidence brought out by that investigation conclusively disclosed that the producer was being unfairly dealt with and exploited by the distributor, and further revealed the fact that the present system was simply creating a few millionaires in the city and driving thousands of farmers into a state of penury. This unholy and damnable condition of the farmer is being encouraged and maintained by our provincial and municipal authorities. They seem to treat the producer with contempt, while the distributor is fawningly looked upon as a representative of the big interests. It is perfectly useless to apply to these bodies for relief; it has been tried many times without avail: the distributors control the situation entirely.
On behalf of the dairy farmers I wish to express our thanks to the house for its courteous concession in granting a committee to hold that investigation. After persistent inquiry on the part of the committee, and much side stepping and mystical evasion on the part of the distributors, many startling facts were brought to light. And then the half has not been told. I am not going to take up the time of the house relating all the difficulties that the producers run up against, but I want to cite two facts that have come to my attention since the investigation was held.
In the first place, I am informed by reliable people that between the first of September and the first of May there is practically no surplus whatever in at least one large plant in Montreal; in fact, there is a shortage, a shortage so acute that the plant has to resort to the manufacture of synthetic milk to supply the deficiency. This milk is manufactured from milk powder. Furthermore, I am informed that in this same plant milk brought in by producers is often emptied into the receiving tanks for pasteurization and distribution. The farmer's can is then refilled with separated milk, buttermilk or this synthetic milk, a colouring substance being added to denote that the milk is unfit for human consumption, and it is returned, the farmer being compelled to pay transportation charges both ways, in addition to losing the entire value of his own milk.
[Mr. Picket}
I was under the impression that copies of the evidence and of the report were transmitted to each province with the request that they take action with respect to this unfair practice. How far that request has been implemented in the different provinces I am just at present unable to say, but in the province of Quebec the .government has appointed a milk commission, a body shorn of all power or authority, except as a matter of course the ability to draw down a good salary. They have been offering the farmer unnecessary advice, for instance dn regard to keeping a better herd sire, improving bis pasture, reducing the cost of production, making two blades of grass grow where one grew 'before and similar information of which the farmer was already well aware.
There were two ways in which they might have been of greater assistance to the producer. The first is this: in the month of May last the distributors offered SI .20 per 100 pounds for association milk. The producers did not see fit to accept that price. A conference was arranged, and after deliberation 'the distributors increased their offer to $1.35 for association milk. For the benefit of any hon. members who do not understand what association milk is, I may say it is the milk received from the farmer that is distributed and sold by the plant in quarts or gallons from house to house. The excess above this portion so distributed is called surplus milk, for which a much smaller price is paid, and it is the fluctuation in the quantity and the price of this surplus milk that plays such havoc with the farmer. After this offer of $1.35 had been accepted by the farmers, the usual result followed; the distributors simply increased the fictitious, so-called surplus quantity and the farmers received even less than they had been getting before the increase in price. I have in my room many statements by farmers, and I can get bushels of them throughout the country, but I am going to read only one or two in order to give the house an idea of what the fanners are receiving for milk.
I have in my hand a statement from a farmer who is shipping milk from West Sheffoid, Quebec. In the month up to June 15, he shipped 4,874 pounds of milk, for which he received $1.35 per hundred pounds for 3,800 pounds, and seventy cents per hundred pounds for 1,074 pounds. That netted that farmer just forty-five cents per hundred pounds or one and one-eighth cents a quart. In another instance a farmer shipped 8,420 pounds of milk. He received $1.35 per hundred pounds

The Address-Mr. Picket
for 2,500 pounds and for 5,920 pounds he received seventy cents per pound, netting him 45 cents per hundred pounds with transportation out, or one and one-eighth cents a quart. Those are fair samples of the way in which ithe farmers are being treated as regards their surplus milk.
Later on in the summer the distributors, not content with exploiting the farmer right up to the hilt, turned their tender attention toward extracting a few extra shekels from their consumers. The distributors get it both ways, coming and going. It is a great game; there is no other equal to it, with the same opportunity of displaying spurious generosity at someone else's expense. They first advertised amongst their consumers the fact that the farmer was hard up. That was no idle dream; the farmers are at the breaking point. The distributors spread propaganda amongst their consumers that on account of the dry season the pastures were short, grain was high and out of their great exuberance of friendship and brotherly love to the farmer, notwithstanding the fact that there is never anything but strife between them, much as they were reluctant to do so, they felt it their bounden duty to increase the price of milk one cent per quart or about forty cents per hundred pounds to help the poor farmer out. This was in the month of August. In this way they put the onus upon the farmer for this increased price, although the fact of the matter was that the farmer knew nothing about it and had asked for no special concessions from the distributors at the time, being in no way a party to this gesture supposedly in his behalf. When I first heard of this proposal I was amazed, but withal pleased as I thought perhaps the distributors had really undergone a change of heart and were going to try in a measure to work for the general advantage and atone for the injustices they had inflicted upon the farmer for many years. I could not quite get it out of my mind that there was a nigger in the fence, and this is how the scheme worked out: the price of milk was raised forty cents per hundred pounds; the distributor allotted fifteen cents of that to the farmer, and, according to his usual custom, kept twenty-five cents for himself. This is simply another example of the spurious generosity and double dealing of the distributor.
The milk commission of the province of Quebec could have rendered valuable service had they been so inclined. I noticed in the press during the latter part of the summer and in the fall several reports of the activities of the Hon. Mr. Godbout, Minister of Agriculture for Quebec. He made this statement on several occasions, but in one speech in particular, delivered in the county of Jacques Cartier just prior to the last election, speaking amongst other things of his paralyzed and incompetent milk commission, he said that at the next session of the legislature legislation would be introduced to deal with the milk situation, for instance, to give authority to set the price of milk so that the producer would receive an equal share of the customer's dollar. That is just what the farmer is looking for and what he is eventually going to have. It might just as well be done at once as later on. The farmer is entitled to a fifty-fifty division in the price at which his milk is sold. He will never be satisfied with $1.30, $1.40 or $1.50; he wants a percentage basis. When that is established no more will be heard of lost bottles which in the investigation were shown to range between $7,000 and $18,000 per plant per year, which the farmer unjustly pays for. No more will be heard of the abuse of price cutting indulged in by chain stores as an advertising expedient. No more will be heard of duplication of services and special services for which the farmer is called upon to pay.
Mr. Godbout further stated that the farmer must reduce his cost of production, and which, according to him, should not exceed 45 or 50 cents per hundred pounds. During the investigation we went into that point very thoroughly and established in the first place a cost of production of milk on the evidence of two gentlemen, Father Labelle and Professor Toupin, of Oka, who had made an intensive study of the question. On their evidence the cost of production of milk per hundred pounds was shown to be about $1.50; and that estimate included only the cost of labour, feed and care. But we had Professor Reynolds from the Ontario Agricultural College, Mr. Merriot, Mr. Fletcher, and Mr. Hughes, representing the different producers' associations in Ontario. They had made a particular study of the question, and they estimated the cost up to $2.50 per hundred pounds. In their figure they took into account overhead, interest on the investment of the farmer, taxes, aDd insurance. Yet Mr. Godbout proposes that the farmer produce milk at 45 to 50 cents! With all due respect to the hon. gentleman's opinion, I contend that is absolutely unreasonable and impossible.
I am not going to say any more about milk. I understand that in Ontario at the present time the government are proposing to stabilize the price of milk. If the province of Quebec will endow their milk commission with some power, and the commission will use that power for the benefit of the producer, I think it will
The Address-Mr. Picket

do some good. At any rate if the provinces do not act with expedition in this matter I would earnestly ask the federal government to assume or acquire the necessary jurisdiction to terminate for all time this perpetual cause of contention between the producer and the consumer.
There are other things that the farmer produces besides milk, and he is suffering just as much in connection with those different articles as he is in connection with milk, and is toeing imposed upon just as badly. How often we hear the favourite expression of candidates in rural constituencies, that agriculture is the basic industry of the country. It is heard oftener, of course, in rural sections than in urban centres. We hear it chiefly during election campaigns by the candidate and his followers, who meet the farmer like a long lost brother and gabble about the importance of agriculture, which in most cases, to the gabbler at least, is just so much hot air, a mere play of words, meaningless drivel. They tell the farmer that the country cannot get along without him. That is true, but the farmer has never been ingenious enough to capitalize upon that fact. The farmer is a peculiar toeing; he is by nature and temperament an individualist, and this innate peculiarity is largely responsible for his undoing. One of the chief characteristics of farmers as a class is disunion in their own ranks. This inbred disposition of the farmer is taken advantage of by the packer, the middleman and the commission man, in their finished and devastating technique for exploiting the farmer, whose industry is being constricted, compressed and strangled; graded, regraded, degraded and finally crucified by adverse government regulations and restrictive acts unfairly administered by the commission houses, contrary to the spirit of the framers of those acts and regulations.
Now sir, let us consider our home market for a moment and view its inner workings as controlled-improperly controlled-by the middlemen ; perhaps I am within my rights in saying illegally controlled. Yet that may not be quite right, because they are bolstered up by different restrictive acts that have been in existence for many years. This did not develop in a day; it has been going on for a long time; the farmer has been ignored for years. His interests have not been looked after by one party any more than the other. This is not a party question; it transcends parties, but it means the life or death of the biggest and best class of citizens in the country. I do not wish to imply that this special legislation was enacted with an ulterior motive
rMr. Pickel.]
against the farmer. I fully concede that these acts were probably decreed with the best intentions and presumably in the interests of the farmers, but the middleman has become a past master in their artful interpretation and administration. He has had a free course, a golden opportunity, and he has made the most of it. The temptation was alluring; there were no obstacles in his way, and he simply took advantage of the situation. It would be very interesting if we could get the full history of the framework of these different restrictive acts. I never heard that a farmer-producer was ever consulted in reference thereto; I have always associated their evolution with the combined efforts of technicians and heads of departments, at the request of shrewd middlemen. They have been enacted and put upon our statute books without in any way consulting the producers.
Our home market should be the best in the world, because we consume ninety-eight per cent of all our farm products at home, with the exception of wheat and cheese. But it is right here in our own home market that the farmer has been exploited and robbed; he is being robbed to-day right on his own doorstep by the distributors. To-day in the cities, sir, you will find the cold storage warehouses bulging with farm produce, though they are not bulging quite so much as they were because the produce has been unloaded to the public by degrees since the farmers stopped producing. These goods were bought up at very low prices, in many cases for less than the cost of production, and the prices were arbitrarily fixed by the commission men. Today they are being sold at huge profits in order to create millions for a few in the cities. Why should these huge profits redound to the middlemen alone? Some adjustment is in order, and it should be made without delay. If conditions are not remedied at once in the country our rural life is doomed.
Industry of all kinds is picking up, with the single exception of agriculture. The government does not seem to realize that the farmers constitute the biggest and best class in this country, and that if they are prosperous it will have a marked effect upon all other classes. The government does not realize that the farmers are the biggest purchasers of any class in this country. Every day the farmer has to buy goods. He has to purchase the same articles that are purchased by the ordinary citizen as well as a long list of expensive articles which are necessary in the pursuit of his calling. He has to buy wire, nails, roofing, cement, lumber and a long list of expensive agricultural implements and machinery such as cream separators, expensive

The Address-Mr. Pickel
stablefittings, and so on. And it must be remembered that these expensive articles must be replaced every so often; they detriorate very rapidly. The government forgets that the farmers are perhaps the largest class of employers in this country. If the farmers were receiving adequate remuneration for their labour and goods to-day they could absorb from half to three-quarters of the unemployment which is so rife in the country and about which all governments are very much concerned.
There are one or two things which I think our legislators have forgotten or overlooked for a long time. Perhaps it may be because of the natural modesty of the farmer or perhaps it may be due to the fact that he is patient and long suffering that he is not continually, in and out of season, harrassing the government of the day by adopting the same peremptory tone, tactful schemes and issuing the same dire ultimatums that have characterized one section of our agriculturists. We in the east have made the best of a bad job; we have kept on paying the demands of the west. The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that the government does not know just how to help the farmer. Our legislators are not familiar with the difficulties and grievances under which the farmer is labouring; consequently they do not know how to give him relief. It is high time they looked into the matter and gave the farmers the assistance necessary to enable them to market their goods. The mere assertion that agriculture is the basic industry of the country and therefore should be encouraged and assisted, which we always expect and hear in speeches from the throne, both provincial and federal, will not help the farmer one iota unless it is implemented by sane and useful action.
Here is the position of the farmer to-day, Mr. Speaker, in a nutshell. He does not ask for a dole or a bonus; neither does he ask that the price to the consumer be boosted. What he asks for is his just share of what his goods sell for. His great and insurmountable difficulty is the distribution of his own goods in his own market. I mentioned the goods that are in the cold storage warehouses at the present time, and which were purchased at very low prices which were arbitrarily fixed by the middlemen. In the city of Montreal five men meet every Tuesday; they say, "We will pay so much for butter this week", and that settles it. During the producing season of the farmers, in the late spring and summer, the prices are depressed and they remain depressed just as long as the producing season lasts; but after he has
finished producing and has no more to sell, up goes the price. It is simply manipulated by the middlemen. It does not seem reasonable that the farmers should be subjected to a thing of that kind. This recession of price in the spring and summer during the producing season, and later the augmentation of price in the autumn and winter by as much as one hundred or one hundred and fifty per cent, occur almost with clock-like regularity, and as I say, this price fluctuation is simply the result of price manipulation by the middlemen. I trust that the house will appreciate the perplexity with which the farmer is aimlessly and hopelessly drifting, and the necessity of our getting together and trying to do something for his relief. I sometimes think that legislators never stop to give the farmer a thought. If a commission had been appointed for the purpose of producing a plan for putting the farmer out of business quickly, I do not see how they could have improved upon the system that is in use today for accomplishing that object; for it is a fact that the farmer is being driven off the farm. Both these men whose statements I have read are no longer farmers; they have been driven out of farming.
Do our legislators ever pause and wonder why so few dairy farmers are paying income tax? Do they not think that the dairy farmer would be glad to be in a position to contribute to the revenue from this impost? Certainly, sir, the dairy farmers would be only too glad to be in a position to pay income tax. It is amazing that hon. members do not pause to inquire why it is that the dairy farmers, with individual investments ranging from five to fifty thousand dollars in plants, should not be in a position to pay income tax. While the farmer may not be paying income tax directly-I do not know of any farmer in my section who does, and I think it is a crime-nevertheless I firmly believe that the farmers are the biggest contributors to the income tax revenues of any class in this country, but they contribute the tax indirectly and the other fellows get the credit.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman's
forty minutes has expired.


Follin Horace Pickel: Just one more remark, with your permission, Mr. Speaker. The farmer by these 'restrictive and grading acts is compelled to sell his goods at such a low price that it is the consumers and the distributors who pay the income tax and get the credit therefor, but the farmer contributes it indirectly.
The Address-Mr. Bradette


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Mr. Speaker, in extending my sincere felicitations to the mover (Mr. Gobeil) and the seconder (Mr. Barber) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, may I say that in listening to their speeches I was impressed, as I am sure all hon. members were, by the diversity of the problems that we have to face in a country with such an immense area as Canada. The mover of the resolution spoke of the problems of the eastern townships, and was followed by the seconder, residing nearly three thousand miles away on the Pacific slope. Sometimes as representatives in this House of Commons we are criticized because of the long drawn out sessions. The first time I was in this house I asked myself why a session should be long, but it did not take me very long to realize that the main reason was that with 245 constituencies spread over such a great expanse of territory, with different conditions and varying problems in each, it was necessary for the members who had been honoured by the representation of a riding in this house to put before it the problems of his own region, because the prosperity or otherwise of any one section is bound to have its effect upon the country as a whole. That is the reason, sir, why I am perfectly at ease as I proceed to present some of the problems pertaining to our section of the country, more particularly those of northern Ontario.
The first problem with which I wish to deal is that of the railways. I listened very attentively to the splendid speeches of both the Prime Minister (iMr. Bennett) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), and I read them afterwards in Hansard. The Prime Minister in his speech made a statement which certainly will not be very favourably received in the northern sections of Ontario and Quebec when he criticized very severely what he called the lack of vision of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and of the people responsible for the construction of the transcontinental section of the national railway system of Canada as we have it to-day. He also made mention of the fact that we have in this country a population of 10,000,000 or thereabouts. Surety the Prime Minister should realize that the construction of that railway through the northern part of Ontario and Quebec is responsible for maintaining at least hundreds of thousands of people in that section of Canada. Let the right hon. gentleman try to visualize the condition of industrial centres like Toronto and Montreal without the population of northern Ontario and Quebec, who are their best customers. The

same thing applies as forcibly to the wheat growers of the three western provinces, and indeed to the whole of Canada. No doubt there was over-optimism, but no government could have foreseen what the railways would have to contend with in the future. No one could have foreseen the great development of the automobile industry and the competition of the motor truck and the autobus with our railways. I have in mind a statement made by Henry Ford a few years ago that it would soon be found that the countries which were the least railroaded would be the best off. But in this country, on account of our long distances and our climatic and geographical conditions, sheer necessity compels us to maintain our railroads and their identity; and they were a necessity for its development and expansion.
I listened with a great deal of interest to that part of the speech from the throne in which His Excellency says:
Since I have been associated with you as the representative of His Majesty in Canada, I have visited every province of the dominion. I have been greatly impressed by the loyalty, devotion and friendliness of the people, as well as the high courage with which men and women were meeting and overcoming abnormal difficulties in their daily lives.
It was with a great deal of pleasure that during last summer we had the honour of a visit in northern Ontario and Quebec from the representative of the king. It is true that for some reason which I know was absolutely unpremeditated, some of the larger centres of population were not visited. I have in mind particularly that wonderful new industrial centre of Kapuskasing, located on the Canadian National railway, and my hope is that if in the future we are honoured with visits from representatives of the crown they will find it possible to visit that fine centre of population. But the visit of His Excellency the Governor General would of course have been impossible without the opening up of that newer section of the country. What does it mean, the opening up of all this new territory in the Cochrane district, the Red Lake district, the Hearst district, the Amos and Rouyn districts and innumerable other sections which are traversed by the transcontinental railway running from Quebec to Winnipeg? All this was due to the building of the National Transcontinental railway from Quebec to Winnipeg. The spirit of optimism has always existed in the province of Ontario. When the provincial government contemplated building a railroad from North Bay northwestward to Cobalt, it is true there were people who doubted the wisdom of building

The Address-Mr. Bradette
such a road, but that capital expenditure has since been found to be fully warranted. Later on that ribbon of steel was pushed forward to Cochrane. Only two summers ago we had the wonderful spectacle of the opening up of the railroad from Cochrane to tidewater at Moosonee. Although that investment is not earning interest and amortizement, the province of Ontario is satisfied with the investment. It has proved to be one of the main sources of expansion, progress and prosperity in the whole province, and it has benefited the whole of Canada. Before the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) makes any more statements of that nature I hope he will find it possible to study the situation very thoroughly.
Take our own case in northern Ontario. We receive no direct benefit from the canalization of our waterways, but we feel that as long as it is beneficial to some sections of Canada, it has also an indirect beneficial effect upon our own section. The money invested in the canalization of our waterways is approximately $400,000,000. With an interest rate of four per cent per annum, this represents $16,000,000 per year. For the expense of upkeep there is expended annually about $3,000,000. The government does not receive one single cent in return, but there has not been a single word of criticism uttered in any section of Canada with regard to that expenditure. The government has seen fit to enter into a treaty with the United States to provide for the development of the St. Lawrence waterway. Without trying to prophesy, I have no doubt that that waterway will cost hundreds of millions of dollars when it is eventually carried out. I ask the Prime Minister to take this into consideration when considering these matters.
When discussing a matter of such importance as our railroads, every hon. member should consider the benefit derived therefrom by every section of the country. It is quite true that we have not received the attention we deserve in the exploitation of the National Transcontinental. It is true also that there are discriminatory rates from Winnipeg to Quebec which prevent any through traffic in freight or passengers on that section of the road. We made several appeals to the old railway board but we were unable to obtain justice. When the National Transcontinental section of the present government railway system was built, it was never intended for local traffic; it was intended primarily for through traffic, but because of the development of our natural resources, because of our riches in forests, waterpower, mines and agriculture, it is now found that this section is not only self-supporting but is one of the best-paying sections of the whole nationally owned railway system. I hope that my own section of the country as well as the northern section of the province of Quebec will again present their ease to the new railway board. We are confident that justice will be given to that particular section of the government railway system, and we believe that that faith will not be shattered.
I shall now deal with another matter which, although regional in its nature, has had its effect upon the rest of the country. I refer to the strike of the bushmen and settlers which took place last fall and is still continuing in certain sections of northern Ontario. It may seem strange to many hon. members that settlers working at lumbering operations have found it necessary to strike, but such is the case. No doubt hon. members have read the particulars of this strike which appeared in the newspapers. It lasted for weeks in the northern section of Ontario and spread past the Quebec border . I do not think it is for me to discuss the wisdom of the leadership of those men. As far as I am personally concerned, I have no love for some of the leaders, and the premier of the province of Quebec has shown that he has no patience with them. But there is no doubt in my mind that the bushmen and the settlers were suffering a great injustice in Ontario, and this applies equally to the province of Quebec. Although some of the leaders may have been radical, I think they deserve credit for the manner in which the strike was conducted and the results which were obtained. They found the men were not receiving justice and they formed an organization whereby the bushmen could air their views and have their grievances considered by the proper authorities. I know for a positive fact that there are members on the other side of the chamber who are still in their constituencies only because of the fact that some lumbermen are still on strike.
Before I proceed further with the matter, I should like to say a few words of praise for the attitude of most of the strike leaders and the officials of such centres as Kapuskas-ing, Cochrane, Ansonville, Hearst and others. A strange situation existed as far as Ansonville and Cochrane were concerned. The industries themselves were located quite a distance from these centres of population. What I have to say applies more particularly to Smooth Rock Falls and Iroquois Falls. These strikers were sheltered and fed by the towns of Ansonville and Cochrane. It is to the credit of the strike leaders that
The Address-Mr. Bradette

they always appealed for peacefulness among the strikers. The strikers behaved themselves and therefore received the support of all sections of the population. The national and international unions came to their rescue in order that the strike could be carried on, going as far as giving a part of their weekly wages. The first company which found it possible to settle with the men was the Spruce Falls company of Kapuskasing, and I think great credit is due to Mr. Noble, the general manager of the mill. But a different situation existed in the other industrial centres of Smooth Rock Falls and Iroquois Falls because of the fact that the company was in receivership. It was almost impossible for the strikers' committee to obtain access to the officials of the company, but I think it is to the credit of the officials of the receivership that they tried their utmost to meet the strikers.
In order that the house may be seized of the situation, I intend to cite some of the demands made by the strikers, most of which have been acceded to by the companies. There was practically no compfeint as to food. Complaints were made with regard to the sanitary conditions in some of the camps, but I believe these conditions have been remedied. Under the provincial legislation there is sufficient machinery to meet this situation. Another demand was for a monthly wage of $35 for twenty-six working days, plus board. The strikers were forced to compromise on this item. As everyone familiar with lumbering operations will understand, it is absolutely impossible to strike a flat rate of wages. Upon several occasions I spoke to the strikers and urged them to accept a schedule of wages whereby the inexperienced men would receive $26 per month, with the wages graduating to a maximum of S35. If my understanding is correct, an agreement satisfactory to everyone concerned has been arrived at.
The strikers asked for the recognition of camp committees composed of workers in the camps, and the right to hold meetings in the camps. Familiar as I am with all the conditions in the district, I know for a positive fact that an effort is being made to promote cooperation between the workmen and the company, and I was told only a few days ago by an official of one of the large mills in northern Ontario that the agreement was working to the entire satisfaction of everyone.
I will not discuss all the demands that have been made but, only a few of them. Demand No. 9, the men are asking that the wood be scaled twice a month and receipt given. This
[Mr. Bradette.J
demand is quite legitimate. I know of one man who had cut an average of ninety logs a day and when he received his scaling receipt at the end of the month his average was very considerably reduced. Obviously this is not satisfactory to the workman, and the situation must be remedied; scaling will have to be carried out in accordance with the requests made by the strikers.
The settlers, I may point out to the house, also took part in that strike, and some credit would seem to be due so far as the leaders of the bushmen's organization are concerned. Lumbering operations are extremely seasonal. Perhaps ninety per cent of the axemen and bushmen are farmers by calling. They spend only a few months, in fact the winter months, in lumbering, returning in the spring to their farming; at any rate, that is true of the majority of them. That fact alone will indicate how difficult it is to maintain a labour organization. However, the nucleus of a permanent organization has been established, which it is hoped will be maintained indefinitely.
The farmers also have their grievances, let us remember. In some instances there was violence, cars having been unloaded, loads upset, and so forth, but the settlers have cause for complaint, and they have formulated their complaints for submission to the company. In the first place, the settlers are asking, for four-foot pulpwood, $5 per cord, of which they suggest that $1.85 be paid in advance. It is not unreasonable that they should be given $5 per cord. Speaking to an Ontario minister last summer, I said that if the provincial government could find it possible to pay the settlers $5 per cord for the pulpwood they cut -that is, $5 at the siding during the coming winter the provincial government would have to spend practically nothing in direct relief. But what has happened? It is true that one corporation, before the snow came, and owing to the shortage of pulpwood, paid $5 a cord for a few weeks, and practically every settler along the Transcontinental, from Kapuskasing to Hearst, hauled pulpwood on the bare ground and found it remunerative; but the moment the snow came-and the snowfall there was premature, as it was in other sections

the company reduced their payment to $3.50. Now, everyone who knows anything about lumbering operations and the cutting of pulpwood will agree that the farmers cannot possibly make both ends meet if they are to receive only $3.50 for their pulpwood. At present some companies are paying $4, but I insist that unless a minimum of $5 is paid, it is absolutely impossible for the farmers to get along. It is no wonder the

The Address-Mr. Bradette
provincial government finds it necessary to keep up an expensive system of direct relief. The farmers are not being given an adequate remuneration for the pulpwood they are cutting under such difficult conditions.
It was with a good deal of interest that I heard the Prime Minister declare, the day before yesterday, that the pulp and paper industry is one of the greatest industries in Canada. We know how much capital is invested in that industry, and we know the amount of employment it gives to tens of thousands of Canadians. Lumbering operations, as I have already pointed out, are extremely seasonal, and in our section of the province-and this applies to the province of Quebec as well-these operations enable the farmers to balance their budget; it is an occupation from which they can add to their income. But we must remember that one of the best ways to bring prosperity to Canada is to give a fair remuneration to all workmen. The Prime Minister, when he returned from the world economic conference last summer, said that he was in favour of increased commodity prices. I would point out to him that this is not enough; along with increased prices there must be an increase in wages, and if wages axe not increased to keep up with prices there will be no prosperity in this country, at any rate not for some time to come. Just imagine the father of a family, getting $26 a month, and trying to keep that family, body and soul together, when he has to pay let us say $20 a month in rent. And in that northern climate fuel is an expensive item. I repeat, it will help matters considerably, and I hope that in every section of the country this will be realized, particularly in Toronto, if the government can find it possible to allow a minimum of $5 per cord to settlers. The settlers are also asking that their wood should be sealed at the time of loading and not at the mill.
There is no reason why the present situation should be tolerated any longer. A few years ago, when we were shipping carloads of pulp-wood to the United States as well as to Canadian mills, not a single stick of wood left the siding unless it was scaled. The farmers knew how much wood was in a car and they knew the price that would be paid; they simply awaited the return of the cheque. Under the present practice in regard to scaling the farmers do not know what they are going to receive, and they have every reason to protest and to maintain the strike until this grievance is removed. I know of settlers who have loaded a car containing sixteen cords of pulpwood, and anywhere R'ym two weeks
to a month afterwards they have received a scale of twelve or thirteen cords, losing sometimes as high as four cords to the car. Everyone will realize, from the facts as I have indicated them, just how unfair the system is. If it is true that occasionally settlers may have loaded bad wood on the cars, there is a method of remedying such a condition, but every stick of wood that is being shipped should be scaled at the siding. This is a matter of which both departments of labour, provincial and federal, should be fully seized.
I think we should be able to learn 6ome lessons and draw some useful conclusions from this strike. As representative of that district in this house I find myself in a peculiar position. Before leaving for the north country I had a conversation with the federal Minister of Labour, who promised to give all the help he could, and of whose sympathetic attitude to the settlers and strikers I had no doubt. But the moment I was among the strikers, the moment I endeavoured to act as intermediary between the company and the men, I found myself in a strange position. I found, for example, that there were two authorities each of which had a certain extent of jurisdiction. In several instances I found if not conflict at least overlapping between the two authorities. For example, there is an Ontario statute, the Disputes Act, which provides quite clearly that in the time of a strike the mayor of any towm or municipality may be sent by the provincial government as an official to try to solve the difficulty But, as I stated previously, we are in a singular position so far as Cochrane and Rouyn are concerned. Many strikers were residing within the limits of those towns and they were being sheltered and fed by those municipalities. We were not directly interested; I mean by that that the industry was not located within the borders of those municipalities. There is certainly overlapping of authority between the provincial and the federal Labour departments. I know the federal Minister of Labour must have found himself handicapped by some of the statutes of Ontario and that conflict of authority does not permit the settlement of strikes as quickly as should be the case. This is quite comprehensible. I cited my personal case and I believe the federal department was in the same position as I was; they did not dare to interfere in the matter until such time as the provincial authorities had found it impossible to work out a solution of the difficulty. I mention this so that the house may know that certain anomalies exist in our statutes. The provincial legislation is
The Address-Mr. Bradette


Mr. HARRY BUTCHER (Last Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, before directing a few remarks to the speech from the throne I would like to join with hon. members who have preceded me in congratulating the mover (Mr. Gobeil) and the seconder (Mr. Barber) of the address in reply. I very much regret to have to admit that I could not understand the speech of the former; it is my misfortune that I do not understand French. I did, however, appreciate the excellent speech made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber). I thought it was a moderate' and reasonable speech, and I think it was enjoyed by every member of the house.
I would like to draw attention to the amendment to the amendment, moved by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner). According to that amendment the resolution as amended would read as follows:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's present advisers and official opposition do not possess the confidence of this house or of the country.
I presume that at the close of this debate the house will be asked to pass upon this motion. First the members will be asked to vote as to whether they have confidence in the opposition, and I fear that the motion of the hon. member for Acadia will be supported. Then a vote will probably be taken upon the amendment proposed by my right hon. leader, and that will be defeated. I think it would be very interesting if after that a vote might be taken as to whether the third party has the confidence of the house or the country. Unfortunately the rules of the house I suppose will not permit that. We shall not be permitted to ask this house whether they have confidence in the third party. But we may at least ask the country. Perhaps it is not necessary, however, to ask the country, for already certain parts of it have pronounced their views on that subject. Nova Scotia answered a while ago in quite decided terms. A little while before that election I had a conversation with a very intelligent young Nova Scotian in my own district who had just received a letter from a friend in Nova Scotia. My



The Address-Mr. Butcher
neighbour of whom I am speaking is a very strong adherent of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and he told me that this letter he had received from a friend in Nova Scotia conveyed to him the glad news that Nova Scotia was going solidly for the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation at the provincial election, Well, it didn't; in fact Nova Scotia replied in almost needlessly harsh terms to their request for support and confidence. Then British Columbia answered, perhaps a little less emphatically but none the less decidedly; and finally Mackenzie. In Mackenzie constituency probably the ground was as favourable as any that could have been found in western Canada. The candidate was handpicked. In that constituency there were at least two men of excellent reputation who had worked hard to secure the support of their fellow members of the Farmer-Labour party. They were rejected, and a man who was obviously selected by the leaders of the party-


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am sure the hon.
gentleman does not want to mislead this house. The statement that he has made is not correct.


Harry Butcher: I am sure I do not want to hurt the feelings of the hon. gentleman. Perhaps I should not say that, I should say he was introduced to the constituency-


Mr. YALLANCE:: Handpicked.


Harry Butcher: -by the son-indaw, I
understand, of the hon. gentleman.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The statement is
not correct.


Harry Butcher: I accept the hon. gentleman's statement that it is not correct. But at any rate this gentleman, this handpicked candidate, was rejected by the constituency of Mackenzie; that at least I think will not be denied by the hon. gentleman.
Then I want to read a statement made by the hon. member for Acadia as follows:
As I am limited to forty minutes I have not at my disposal the time, for instance, to give an outline of the program of the United Farmers of Alberta; nor have I at my disposal the time to give an outline of the program of the Labour group and other groups affiliated with the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. I have not the time to discuss the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation platform, but we have given it to the world; it is open to anyone to know what that program is. The program of these different groups is available to all who desire to know exactly what we are aiming at. And that is something of which the people of Canada have no knowledge, as far as the Liberal party is concerned.

I want definitely to dispute that statement-both statements as a matter of fact. The people of Canada, those who are interested, have very definite knowledge of the platform of the Liberal party. On the other hand they have not equally definite knowledge of the platform of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. Why? Because it seems to me that there is a different platform for different provinces. For instance we understand that in some parts of the country the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation stands for the socialization of all natural resources, including land. That was the program of the United Farmers of Alberta some few years ago. I understand that now it is no longer a plank in their platform. Freedom of speech is announced as one of the policies of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, yet we are told that in the province of British Columbia it was very definitely stated that there would be discipline of the members of the party as well as restriction of the right of the press to publish anything that was detrimental to the party. So that altogether I think it may truly be said that there are two misstatements-not wilful of course, but two misstatements in the passage I read. In the first place we have not, and the country has not, a definite statement as to the platform of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and it certainly has a definite statement as to the policy of the Liberal party.
Now I want to refer to two short passages in the speech from the throne. The first reads as follows:
My government realize, however, that further increases in price levels are necessary to insure success to those engaged in agriculture.
This is undoubtedly true; I do not imagine that any person will question it. The prices of agricultural products certainly must be raised before there can be anything approaching prosperity for agriculture. There must be prosperity for agriculture before there can be prosperity for industry. But already there has been an increase in the price level of commodities, other than agricultural products, which is in excess of the increase in the price level of agricultural products. I have here a very excellent little publication published by the Searle Grain Company and called the Farmer's Index, in which it is stated that on December 15, 1933, wheat had a purchasing power of 42 per cent of that which it had in the year 1913-14, but that on January 15, 1934, this purchasing power had increased to 50 per cent of that of 1913-14. It is pointed out that while the price of wheat on January

The Address-Mr. Butcher
15, 1934, was 71 per cent of the 1913-14 price, the commodities purchased by the farmer were 25 per cent higher than they were in that year. That means that with any given sum to-day the farmer can purchase only fifty-six per cent of the commodities he could have purchased with that same amount in 1913-14.
I think here we find one reason for a great part of the unemployment that exists to-day. There is no doubt whatever that tens of thousands of farmers throughout the land need implements, farm tools, machinery of all sorts and lumber for building; they need clothing, boots and in fact all kinds of commodities that industry would be very glad indeed to supply. Already reference has been made to this fact, but may I say that in my own constituency during the recess I visited half a dozen or . more of those farmers who were regarded as prosperous. I talked over the situation with them, and I found that each of these men needed new machinery that he could not afford to purchase at the present time, as well as a hundred other things around the farm and home. Therefore if the wish expressed in the speech from the throne could be only realized, and the purchasing power of the farmers increased, at once a new impulse would be given to industry.
The question arises as to how it can be done, and here of course is where great differences of opinion will arise. The speech from the throne states:
You will be invited to consider legislation designed to facilitate the efficient and profitable marketing of live stock and agricultural products.
No doubt careful consideration will be given any proposal the government may bring forward, but a further question arises. Is there likely to be any substantial increase in the price of wheat so long as we have such a large carry-over? I am convinced in my own mind that our tremendous carry-over of wheat, which has been referred to by several speakers during this debate, is a continual threat to the wheat market, and that threat will not be removed until that surplus has been considerably reduced. I am going to make a suggestion to the government, and I hope that at least it will be considered. It may be thought impractical, but I believe that in time it may be found to be quite the opposite. Notwithstanding the fact that the wheat markets of Europe are so limited, and that some of them appear to be closed entirely, is it not remotely possible that some of those countries would be willing to barter manufactured goods for some of our wheat? I know that the suggestion will not meet with 74726-12J
approval on the part of many of our industrial concerns. I know that it may be said, for instance, that Germany and other countries have all the wheat they require, but I believe that practically every European country could take wheat on reciprocal terms. If we would say to some of these countries, "We will barter 25,000,000 bushels of wheat for manufactured products of an equal value," it is just possible that some of our surplus wheat could be disposed of. If our surplus could be reduced by that means I believe that would be the first step towards an increase in price.
There is another paragraph in the speech from the throne to which I should like to direct the greater part of my remarks. In the last paragraph I find these words:
You will be invited to consider, amongst others, measures relating to the Excise Act, the Companies Act, the Judges Act, and the Elections Act.
In particular I want to refer to those measures that will relate to the Companies Act. I think the time certainly has arrived when the companies acts of the dominion and the provinces as well need overhauling. One must admit, and we cheerfully do admit, that among the thousands of company promotions in the past the vast majority have been absolutely legitimate enterprises, reasonably financed and carefully organized. In most cases such companies have served a good and useful purpose. Doubtless many mergers also have been of a beneficial character. Of such mergers and such companies and their promoters I have no criticism to offer, and the remarks I am about to make certainly do not apply to them. But there have been other promotions and other promoters that certainly do not fall within the foregoing category, but are of an entirely different character. They have not served any useful purpose; on the contrary their operations have been distinctly detrimental to the interests of the public and absolutely disastrous to those individuals who have been induced to invert in the securities offered for sale.
I think most of us will admit that there are many grave weaknesses and many striking injustices in our economic system of to-day. We do not admit that this system should be scrapped; we do not believe it should be scrapped, but we do believe that these weaknesses and injustices should be remedied. I cannot imagine for a moment that even the stoutest apologist for our present economic system will deny the charges I have made, nor will he deny that many financial crimes have been perpetrated in the recent past by
The Address-Mr. Butcher

a very objectionable type of company promoter and a similar type of financier and financial organization, causing great loss and hardship and even the most acute suffering to thousands of investors, as well as resulting in a very great increase in the cost of living to the consumer. This is one of the outstanding weaknesses of our system; I refer to the ease with which some financiers have been able to exercise their predatory habits by taking control of certain essential industries in which their only interest is to bleed them white. Already this evening an hon. gentleman has made reference to the milk industry and the manner in which huge fortunes have been piled up by the people handling the milk while the producers have been reduced almost to beggary. No doubt there have been many times when the promoters of this kind of enterprise have been caught themselves in the maelstrom resulting from their operations. They have been caught in the net they spread for others, but that does not in the slightest degree lessen the enormity of their offences or render it any less necessary that the most stringent legislation should be enacted to prevent a repetition thereof.
When we come to investigate the reasons for many of these promotions we find that mainly there are three or four, the first being the desire to make huge profits out of stock manipulation through the organization, reorganization or merging of the companies concerned. Then, having promoted these companies, they demand of the management that they shall reduce the cost of production to the lowest possible point, chiefly by oppressing labour, with no intention whatever of passing the saving on to the consumer but rather that of seeking to exact the highest possible price, make the largest possible profit, control the market and eliminate as far as possible all competition, by any means whatsoever, legitimate or illegitimate. There is no doubt whatever that if not actual fraud something
Class of Income
$ 100,000 and under $ 150,000	
150.000	and under 300,000	
300.000	and under 500,000	
500.000	and under 750,000	
750.000	and under 1,000,000	
1.000.	000 and under 1,500,000	
[DOT]1,500,000 and under 2,000,000	
2.000.	000 and under 3,000,000	
3.000.	000 and under 4,000,000	
4.000.	000 and under 5,000,000	
5.000.	000 and over	
shockingly near to it has been perpetrated by promoters in order to mislead the investing public either by misstatement of material facts or by withholding material information. No doubt these men have been induced to form these various companies because of a general and somewhat natural desire on the part of the public to amass wealth quickly, .and they have taken advantage of this desire in order greatly to enrich themselves. With that lack of mercy which is peculiar to the tiger and the wolf, with the cunning of the fox, with fair promises on their lips but foul designs in their minds, they have set out to defraud and cheat the investing public. I know these are strong terms but they are undoubtedly true, and I am quite sure that many hon. members can think at this moment of instances of this kind of thing.
During the past few years there has been, as [DOT] has already been mentioned in this house, a great increase in the number of huge incomes in the United States-the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) made a reference to this yesterday. I have here some figures which might interest the house. They are taken from Industry, Commerce and Finance, Chapter 4, Use and Abuse of Credit. The extract reads as follows:
Another set of figures that throws some light upon the amounts taken from the general public has been supplied recently by the Internal Revenue Department of the United States government in its income tax returns for the year 1928. The number of personal incomes in the United States in the various classes in 1928, as compared with 1927 were as folows:
That is just one year-1928 as compared with 1927. I shall not read all these figures but I will point out to the house that incomes between $1,000 and $5,000 were decreased by 128,986 in that one year, while in that same year incomes of over $5,000 were increased by 98,323. But that is not the worst of it. Here are some further figures showing how other incomes have grown:
Number of Individuals	Increase
1927	1928	
5,261	7,049	1,7883,873	5.678	1,8051,141	1,756	615384	685	301173	298	125138	284	12656	108	5255	91	3622	40	188	18	1011	26	15

1S1
The Address-Mr. Butcher
All this happened in one year, according to the United Staites income 'tax returns as published by the Internal Revenue Department. In 1928 there were 26 people with an income of $5,000,000 and over, as compared with eleven in 1927. I know that hon. gentlemen will say: "Why mention these things here? They do not apply to Canada; there is nothing like that in this country." There is no reason to believe that that kind of thing has gone on to the same extent in Canada, but it would be interesting to know to what extent less it has been happening here. The evidence already given before the Senate committee in the United States has been a terrible indictment of high finance in that country, and one wishes that a similarly exhaustive inquiry might be made into the history of some of our own enterprises, Canada Paper and Power, for instance. The financial brigands of whom I am complaining have in many instances chosen for their operations the necessaries of life and the minor luxuries for which there is a great demand. They have selected bread, fruit, fish, milk, coal, cotton, wool, pulp and paper, cement, asbestos and radio. Everywhere they dip unholy hands into the life stream of the people. Nothing is sacrosanct to them if by any means, be they ever so foul, they may enrich themselves at the expense of the public. This house has a duty with respect to these men, and I am hopeful that the government when it brings down amendments to the Companies Act will provide restrictive measures against this kind of thing. If that duty is neglected a day of reckoning will surely come, and it may take a form distasteful to most hon. members. The patience of many of our citizens is well-nigh exhausted; they are 'becoming better informed. If we fail to rise to the occasion, we cannot justly complain if we are replaced by other men who will deal with the matter.
During the dying days of last session I placed several questions on the order paper and received answers, and I am going to read these questions and answers because I want to make an explanation of my reason for placing the questions on the order paper. The first question was:
1.	Was a petition for an inquiry under The Combines Investigation Act alleging that an illegal combine consisting of: Canadian General Electric Company Limited, Canadian Marconi Company (limited liability), Canadian West-inghouse Company Limited', Northern Electric Company Limited, Western Electric Company Limited, Standard Radio Manufacturing Corporation (now the Rogers-Majestic Corporation), Canadian Radio Patents Limited, is operating and has operated since January 19, 1927, filed with the registrar under the Combines Investigation Act, during the year 1930?
The reply to that question was "Yes." The next question was:
2.	Did the registrar make an investigation and report to the minister?
The answer was "Yes." The third question was:
3.	Was the report of the registrar of such a character as to induce the minister to transmit the complaint, the petition, copy of the evidence taken at the investigations and other necessary documents to the Attorney-General_ of Ontario for appropriate action under section 31 (a) and (b) of the Combines Investigation Act?
The answer to that was "Yes." The next question was:
4.	In view of the fact that the Attorney-General of Ontario did not institute proceedings against the alleged illegal combine, has the minister considered the advisability of applying any of the other remedies enumerated in section 31 of the Combines Investigation Act. and what decision has he arrived at in connection therewith?
The answer to that was "Yes, but no further action is contemplated."
I shall now refer to a few of the allegations made in the petition for an investigation filed with the registrar of the Combines Investigation Act in connection with the alleged combine alluded to in the questions I have just read. I shall remark first, however, that of all the pernicious and, in my opinion, financially immoral ventures to which I have referred, this least touches the actual necessities of life. Nevertheless it is an example, though not the best that might be afforded, of that rapacious greed which characterizes the actions of many of the men whose names are almost invariably found upon the list of those most interested in this sort of enterprise. May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to inform you and the house of some of the outstanding features of this particular alleged illegal combine?
In June, 1930, a declaration alleging the existence of an illegal combine was regularly filed with the registrar under the Combines Investigation Act. The dedarant, one Charles Ridgway Gilpin of the city of Niagara Falls, in the county of Welland and province of Ontario, declared that a combine was then operating and had operated throughout the Dominion of Canada since January 19, 1927, for the manufacture and sale of radio sets and radio vacuum tubes. It was said that the combine consisted of the companies which I have already named. The petition alleged further that the Canadian Radio Patents Limited was incorporated by and on behalf of the other companies which I have named, with the addition of the Western Electric Company Limited. It was alleged that this
The Address-Mr. Butcher

The speech from the throne also mentions that the resolutions of the World Economic Conference will be submitted to the house. It is therefore difficult to discuss at length the subject, because we are informed that amendments to the Bank Act and monetary system will be later on submitted. We must neces-arily wait to find out what a central bank means and know what changes will be made in the quotation of our present currency, as compared with what it is now on the basis of gold which we still retain under our present financial legislation. We must necessarily await the bringing down of such legislation so as to be correctly informed of what the house will have to consider.
Further on, the speech from the throne refers to a measure so as to curtail wheat seeding. I wish to frankly admit, sir, that a number of farmers from the southern and eastern sections of Ontario rejoice in seeing that the Dominion had at last understood the farmer's problem by giving a bonus of 5 cents per bushel, in 1932, on all Western wheat, because it was only fair that the growing of certain products, especially wheat, should afford a livelihood to its farmers, and, therefore, the government came to the rescue of those who carried on this production. When however, to-day, so as to solve the problem of those who carry on such wheat growing, they are requested to reduce, in the future, the acreage sown, it affords very little hope of improvement to the farmers of Canada, Ontario and Quebec. However, again do I state that one must necessarily wait. The government also leads us to hope that a measure in connection with agricultural short term and intermediate credits will be brought down so as to help the farmer. The latter is certainly in need of this credit and this, in various ways; however, if we are to judge from the statement made by the right hon. Prime Minister, in answer to the leader of the opposition's (Mr. Mackenzie King) question, the other day, it will be very difficult for the farming classes to obtain such credits, either in cooperation with the government or in cooperation with our financial institutions. He stated:	who,
among you, after all, would loan money to someone who is wholly insolvent or is on the eve of becoming so?
I am sorry to state, sir, that the farmers whom I have the honour of representing-for the county of Prescott, with the exception of a small industrial town, is essentially farming-are absolutely in the situation described by the Prime Minister. We took much pride in the past in the fact that the farming class was the foundation upon which rested the

entire economic structure of our country and that the labouring classes were certainly those who purchase the largest quantities both of the manufactured and agricultural products. I really wonder whether one can find in the speech from the throne, such as delivered to us, any hope of relief. It is true that one finds a little further on, that works are to be undertaken toward the relief of the unemployed, in the course of the year. I shall refer to this subject later, as well as to another in connection with agriculture to which the speech from the throne makes reference.
The speech from the throne further states that we shall be given an opportunity to study the Excise Act, the Judges Act, the Companies Act and the Elections Act. I shall not dwell further on that part of the speech. However, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher) on the able speech he delivered as regards the necessity of amending the Companies Act, so that the various companies, holding either dominion or provincial charters, be so organized that they will only issue stable values to the public, and that the act be so drawn up to protect the interests of those who invest money in such enterprises, thus preventing speculation and informing the public of the real value of their shares or bonds previous to being put on the market.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can err much in repeating what was so well stated by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel) that, of all classes, the agricultural one is certainly the class which is undergoing the greatest hardships and meeting the most difficulties. The speech from the throne sufficiently and very clearly states on this subject:
The prices of agricultural products which have fallen in recent years to the lowest level in history, have shown substantial improvement in the last few months. My government realize, however, that further increases in price levels are necessary to ensure success to those engaged in agriculture.
In fact, if we compare farming products with those manufactured, and if we take as a basis of comparison the year 1926 when the values of products were practically normal, when the farmer could fairly well balance his budget, and when our industries, trade and all other activities in the country were prosperous, I think we can well refer to the figure 100 as an indication of the value of these products. Therefore, basing our calculations on the year 1926, we find that the farmer would have required the amount of products which I shall mention shortly to purchase one dollar of manufactured goods. Taking

The Address-Mr. Bertrand
the figure 100 as our basis of comparison for 1926, the farmer could purchase $1.00 of manufactured goods in 1926, with $1.00 of farm products. In 1927, he could purchase $1.00 of manufactured goods with 95 cents of farm products. In 1928, $1.00 worth with 94 cents. In 1929, $1.00 of manufactured goods with 92 cents. In 1930, $1.00 of manufactured goods with $1.06. In 1931, $1.00 of manufactured goods with $1.33. In
1932,	$1.00 with $1.44 of farm products. In
1933,	$1.00 of manufactured goods with $1.38 of farm products.
Therefore, in 1933, last year, the farmer was forced to sell $1.38 of farm products so as to purchase $1.00 of manufactured articles, namely a drop of 38 per cent in the value of his products. The farmer must necessarily purchase a great number of articles which he does not produce on his farm. I must add that the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi stole a march on me with reference to the remarks that I intended to make so as to prove the difficult situation of the farmer. I, however, wish to congratulate the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi on his courage. In spite of what is disclosed in the speech from the throne, in spite of his leader's policy, and notwithstanding that he is a government supporter, he admits that there is nothing of any consquence in the speech from the throne, not an iota, that this question should be considered outside of party politics, because the farmer is at the door of bankruptcy and he must absolutely be assisted.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the hon. member will allow me. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi made the same statement last year, he, however, repudiated his statement fifteen days later.


Mr. BERTRAND (Translation):: The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) may be right, however, it gave me pleasure to meet a repentant sinner wishing to preach the good cause. I only saw the good intention of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi,


Mr. DUPUIS (Translation):: Hell is paved with good intentions.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Truly,
sir, we cannot have more convincing proofs in this matter than those given by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil). Referring to the price of butter, when he moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne, he stated that, in 1929, butter was worth 39 cents in Canada, while in the United States it was worth 45 cents; and he added that, in 1933, butter was worth 20 cents in Canada, while American butter sold at 21
cents on the New York market. He asserted that we had made a great gain since the difference was much less between the price of butter on the Canadian and the United States markets. However, the hon. member for Compton forgot to state that the fixed charges of the farming class are the same as those of 1930, at the time of the Dominion election when all Conservatives taking their cue from their leader, felt sorry for the Canadian farmer, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, they stated that something had to be done to enhance the price levels on agriculture. Today, although the farmer's lot is the same as in 1930, so far as his debts and liabilities are concerned the hon. member for Compton will allow me to prove, according to his own figures, that the price of butter has decreased 18-70 cents per pound. I do not think that such was the expectation of the farmers, when they listened to our friends proclaiming their policy in 1930.
It is, therefore, not amazing that, to-day, the government states in the speech from the throne:
You will be invited to consider legislation designed to facilitate the efficient and profitable marketing of live stock and agricultural products.
We welcome such a statement; however, as we are all aware that agricultural products in the world's markets fall under the inevitable law of supply and demand, the statement seems to us as having been inserted in the speech from the throne in view of a probable election in the course of this year. It is a clever way of renewing the pledges of 1930, and, in my opinion, we are greatly reminded of the promises of 1930; for instance those made by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), then leader of the opposition.
At Woodstock, N.B., on July 2, 1930, he stated:
I regret to see the deserted farm lands of New Brunswick. Quebec and other provinces. Well, I am going to say right here that I shall regard it as my great responsibility if elected on July 28 to see that the collective weight and power of the Dominion of Canada is placed behind agriculture. I would be lacking in qualifications entitling me to head a government if I failed to do so.
We are told, at times, that this pledge was fulfilled since the national market was reserved for the Canadian farmer and that it helped to safeguard the interests of the farming classes. I openly state, sir, that this explanation will not satisfy the farming community of this country, even if some of these pledges have had the honour of being

Ottawa. Our workmen protested against this policy because it was one of the few opportunities given to them to earn enough to support their family. We most earnestly protested and immediately requested that people from the district be employed when such works were undertaken rather than having recourse to workmen brought from distant points. The more so because our people are in receipt of money provided by the unemployment fund, while work is being done at their door.
I had a few other remarks to make, but I notice that the time allotted to me is almost at an end. I shall state in closing my remarks that the people of this country are anxious for a change of government in order to give the workmen a better opportunity of earning a livelihood and the farmer a chance to return to his normal state. We contend that they suffer the most in the present crisis and I can assure you that they desire the reestablishment of a better economic equilibrium among the various classes of society, the free intercourse of our international trade and an opportunity for each individual to occupy his normal place in the midst of our population.
On motion of Mr. Maloney the debate was adjourned.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Richard Bedford Bennett: To-morrow we will take
the business as it is on the order paper, and probably, in order that we may be prepared for business, we may go into supply and discuss shortly Finance, Justice and Public Works so that we may be able later to proceed without delay.


Charles A. Stewart: I may say
that there will be no objection from this side of the house-


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will not pass any
item.


Charles A. Stewart: I was going to say that if objection were taken to going into supply, it could not be done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have the right to
make a motion to go into supply; of course we cannot go into supply automatically. It is not proposed to pass any item, but we wish to prepare the way so that we shall have two or three items that will be under discussion in order that we may proceed with supply when our present business is disposed of.


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

Friday, February 2, 1934