March 24, 1931

CON

Samuel Gobeil

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GOBEIL:

Because every one of them

has emphaticalfy endorsed the policy of the Prime Minister of Canada. Is it not strange -and the people of Quebec will remember this-that before the last election the present Prime Minister was represented as an imperialist of the worst kind? He was said to be even worse than a former prime minister, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen-'and this is saying much so far as hon. gentlemen opposite are concerned. We were even told that we were going to have a war if the present Prime Minister and his party were returned to power. But what do we see to-day? The same right hon. gentleman is criticized by the leader of the opposition as a traitor to the empire. No wonder hon. members from Quebec who sit on your left, Mr. Speaker, are not so anxious to speak about the embargo;

The Address-Mr. Gobeil

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
UFA

Michael Luchkovich

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):

I should like, Mr. Speaker, to emulate the humour and the wit of the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) and the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), but at the present moment I am not in the mood for any humorous subject at all. My main purpose in rising to participate in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne emanates from an earnest and sincere desire to bring to the attention of the government the anomalous situation in which agriculture now finds itself, and to point out the peculiar idiosyncrasy of that human element in society which has so perversely precipitated agriculture to the bottom rung of the ladder so far as prosperity, profit and a decent standard of living are concerned.

At the outset, therefore, I wish to point out to the cabinet members sitting on the government benches that you cannot degrade agriculture and at the same time have prosperity in the other industries. Nor can you have prosperity in the other industries unless the same condition obtains also in agriculture. For if the tiller of the soil, who 'has been the mainstay of civilization ever since the dawn of ages, and who, like Atlas, has been bearing the burdens of the world through countless centuries, were now to lay down on his job, there is no doubt at all in my mind as to

The Address-Mr. Luchkovich

what the result would be. All the other industries would stop, and mankind would go back to primitive conditions.

Many thousands of years ago, when farming as an industry was still unknown, when man led a more or less precarious and predatory sort of existence, wandering from place to place in a murderous quest for food, civilization in our sense of the word was unknown; and why? The reason is obvious. Because in those days there were no settled agricultural communities; and where there are no settled agricultural communities there is no progress, no opportunity for development of a philosophy of life. But when man finally learned how to care for herds and flocks, and to plant seeds, communities began to spring up in which some of the workers supplied food for all, and other workers applied themselves to the different handicrafts, trades and arts, giving rise to a division of labour based on agriculture from which have developed all the numerous activities that make up our present-day modern civilization. This condition could not have been possible had agriculture not supplied the nucleus from which has sprang the progress, culture and livilization which have been left to us as a heritage of the thousands of struggling, but now extinct, generations.

I think it is universally recognized'-I am sure it is recognized by all members on both sides of the house- that agriculture in Canada is our basic and most important industry. The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil), who has just spoken, said that he would like to have cooperation between the members on this side and the members opposite. I would like to have that cooperation, especially with regard to freight rates, and especially with regard to agricultural credits and interest rates, as well as other things that I would mention were my time not so limited. Agriculture is our most important industry. In Canada, at least, it constitutes our basic industry; and yet, Mr. Speaker, how vast is the difference in comparative compensation so far as agriculture and the other industries are concerned.

Take the case of agriculture and manufacturing. A general survey of our national wealth, published by authority of the hon.

Minister of Trade and Commerce, reveals the following facts for the year 1928:

Farm values (land, buildings, implements, machinery and

live stock) $6,251,081,000

Agricultural products in the possession of farmers and traders 1,801,440,000

Manufactures (machinery and

tools, and estimate for lands

and buildings) $1,356,306,000

Manufactures (materials on

hand and stocks in process) . . 795,775,000

Although farm values surpass manufactures by about six billions of dollars, the following figures will show the great disparity which exists between the value - of production in agriculture and the manufacturing industries:

Manufactures $3,769,847,364

Agriculture 1,905,311,580

Hon. members will see from these figures that there is a great discrepancy between agriculture and manufacturing. It is not my purpose to exaggerate or to depict a situation which does not exist, but when one realizes that since confederation agricultural distress has never been as great as it is at . the present time; and the prices of the implements of agricultural production and the necessities of life were never before so high, while the prices of farm products have sunk to levels far below costs of production, with consequent lack of purchasing power; that farmers have found it impossible to meet their obligations and in many cases to secure the bare necessities of life, and that constant pressure and demands by creditors have promoted the bankruptcy of farmers in the west

when hon. members take cognizance to these facts I am sure they will come to the same conclusion that I came to. It is therefore not difficult to understand that such conditions could easily relegate the industry of agriculture to the level of serfdom and peasantry of bygone days. One can readily anticipate the reaction of the government to a picture of this nature and the inferences contained therein. Undoubtedly hon. members opposite will condemn my remarks as being farfetched or not in accordance with the facts. I am sure however that my colleagues in this corner of the house, or for that matter all conscientious western members, will substantiate my statement and will agree that I have correctly described the conditions which exist in their respective parts of the country. If, however, the government believes my remarks to be true its proper course *would be to give agriculture more substantial relief than it is getting at the present time.

In this respect I should like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), for the stand he has taken with respect to credits. He has given a lead to his colleagues in the cabinet which should not go unheeded by the government. I believe the hon. gen-

The Address-Mr. Luchkovich

tleman is a brilliant and sincere man who has a great future. The following paragraphs from a magazine article indicates the minister's attitude, in regard to credits:

In the meantime Hon. Robert Weir, federal Minister of Agriculture, has been engaging with the banks in a debate over credits to farmers who have still substantial equities in their farms, own stock and implements and buildings, but who have because of low prices run out of ready cash for winter supplies and spring operations. The strength of Mr. Weir's position is that he was recently out west and while there was given authenticated cases of refusal by banks to loan money even where the security was of a high type. The banks have answered him by challenging him to produce the evidence of what he alleged, but that does not embarrass Mr. Weir, because he has the goods in his office here.

He is taking his time in answering the banks, because he has been invited to speak in Montreal to the Canadian Club, next Monday on the western situation, and to the business men of that city he will quote verse and chapter to prove his assertions.

Mr. Weir's object is not that of developing sectional feeling or of castigating the banks, but of taking away a weapon which he feels may otherwise become a powerful one in the hands of professional western agitators, who are making hay while the sun of prosperity is in temporary eclipse. The federal minister is determined to see that the western farmer who is reasonably entitled to help gets it, and has warned that if the banks will not provide such assistance, someone else will.

By a coincidence, the magazine in which I read the statement of the Minister of Agriculture contains also two excerpts, similar but widely divergent in point of time. I read the following:

The idea that the "farm problem" is something new or peculiar to modern times occasionally gets a jolt when we are permitted a glimpse into the forgotten past. Recently on the site of an ancient city a clay cuneiform tablet was unearthed w'hich recorded the fact that 3,500 years ago one Arilludupti, a Mesopotamian farmer, was forced to pledge his entire farm as security for the loan of three and a half pounds of lead. Whether lead was high in price or farm credit low this farmer was undoubtedly facing a problem, as farmers have faced, and solved, since man first tilled the soil or tamed wild beasts for his own use. The farm problem is part of the struggle of the race, first for existence, then for comfort and now for the multitude of things which go to make up our complex civilization.

I shall now read an excerpt describing an incident which took place in my own district, and which attracted so much attention that even a Chicago paper saw fit to publish an account of it. I quote:

Grain Grower's Dilemma (Chicago Drovers Journal)

Something less than a generation ago sheep and lambs were so low in price that not infrequently western shippers found themselves indebted to the commission firms that handled 22119-174

their consignment. A Winnipeg, Manitoba, message tells of the similar predicament of an Alberta wheat farmer.

The story concerns a farmer in the Vegre-ville district of northern Alberta, who was required to make immediate delivery of certain grain which had been assigned to the bank as security for a past-due note. Obedient to the banker's instructions, the farmer forthwith hauled the first load to the elevator, but it was pronounced of low grade and rejected on account of its moisture condition.

The farmer was in a quandary both as to what he should do about his rejected grain and his past-due note, when suddenly an inspiration struck him. He had assigned the grain to the bank. The bank has demanded settlement of his note and, since the elevator had refused to accept the grain for storage, the logical thing to do was to deliver it to the bank.

Accordingly he drove over to the bank, backed up to the rear door, and before police arrived he had succeeded in shoveling the bulk of the grain in on the bank floor. He still has the past-due note and is $25 poorer, this being the penalty exacted for illegal tender.

There is a sequel, however, even to this. Having reloaded the grain, Mr. Farmer was still at a loss as to how he should dispose of it. This problem he solved by dumping it by the roadside as he proceeded back to his farm. Thus the episode would have closed, but for the fact that a neighbour's horse spied the wheat, ate it, swelled up and died. Now the hero of the story faces a suit for damages.

In this instance, Mr. Speaker, both man and horse suffered from the same malady. In the case of the man the malady was due to inflation and deflation of currency, whereas in the case of the horse it was due merely to inflation of the horse's stomach. The difference, however, lies in the fact that while the horse died immediately after inflation of the stomach set in, the man is still eking out a miserable existence under conditions that were brought about by inflation and deflation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to indicate further the farcical situation into which our farming industry has been forced to recede, I read the following article, from Commerce of the Nation, issue of February, 1931. The article is headed Partners in a Great Enterprise, and the text is as follows:

"Agriculture has been the pioneer and developing partner. Without it there would have been no western Canada and so eastern Canada. Agriculture is one of the real foundations of our national prosperity and development."

Senator W. A. Buchanan, at the 1929 convention of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, on "Canada's Economic Partnership."

Agriculture has been a vital factor in the dominion's progress. It has made possible the dominant position of Canada-wherein her foreign trade per head is higher than any other country in the world. Wheat and wheat flour are her greatest single commodity of export trade, constituting more than one-third of her total exports for 1928.

The Address-Mr. Luchkovich

The Bank of Toronto has played its part in the development of agriculture. Its resources of capital and experience, always at the disposal of legitimate enterprises have been available to farmers and farming interests for three-quarters of a century. Loans and credits and friendly cooperation have been given to the Canadian farmer. To-day, in a firmly entrenched financial position-

I emphasize these words:

To-day, in a firmly entrenched financial position. and with an enviable record of service behind it, the Bank of Toronto is of increasing importance to agriculture and to all other ventures of integrity and vision.

No one will quarrel with Senator Buchanan's conclusions with respect to agriculture, or with the statement made relative to agriculture as a vital factor in the Dominion's progress; but when the Bank of Toronto refers to its "firmly entrenched financial position" and its "ever increasing importance to agriculture" in face of the aforementioned contraction of credits and the farmer's lack of purchasing power, its high-falutin magnanimity as expressed in this advertisement appears ludicrous enough to make a horse laugh.

The advertisement, Mr. Speaker, nevertheless is not without some merit-it at least has evoked, wittingly or unwittingly, the admission of the existence of firmly entrenched vested interests in Canada ever ready to play the part of godfather to agriculture. And here is where the rub comes in; it is doing nothing of the kind, for the actual relationship that exists is rather that of stepfather and stepson.

Three thousand five hundred years have passed since the Mesopotamian incident, and yet how similar are conditions to-day. One does not wonder at the" terrible hardships of thirty-five centuries ago, but in this supposedly enlightened age of industrial development it is hard to understand why agriculture still languishes in its chronic and seemingly eternal poor man relationship, waiting for the crumbs that fall from the master's table. Indeed with wheat at 35 cents a bushel the farmer is not even getting the crumbs.

One of Canada's chief troubles is a lack of balance between country and city-between agriculture and the other industries. In our present condition we are like a pyramid balanced on its apex, in mortal fear of our industrial structure toppling over and collapsing-which on final analysis is just about what might happen at any time. To prevent such a condition the structure must be overhauled and altered to bring it into proper balance with all the other prerequisites that go to make up soundness, efficiency and stability. Our industrial system must be very

badly out of gear when the prices available for agricultural produce fall to unprecedentedly low levels, while the prices of other goods and services remain at pre-war boom levels. I agree therefore with the contention of Business Trend:

that the reduced prices which the farmer has been obliged to accept for his products, while paying relatively high prices for his manufactured requirements, form a situation that demands correction before business in general can return to its former state of prosperity.

Why is it that the farmers of Canada during times of depression must accept heavier losses than the manufacturers? Why is it that manufacturing is being aided through numerous tariff increases and other bonuses, while agriculture is left to shift for itself without being given any corresponding relief? If the farmer asks for a bonus on wheat he is immediately confronted with the argument that a fixed price for wheat is conceded by grain expert, economist, business man and banker alike to be outside the pale of practical politics. But how about the $20,000,000 which we voted last September for unemployment relief in our cities and towns? How about our bonuses to railways, coal mines, the steel and iron industry? What is right for one should also be right for the other. But possibly in this regard, while the government consider it just in the case of the aforementioned industries, they do not give the same degree of recognition to agriculture.

A noted western economist says:

If agriculture is the greatest of Canadian industries-and it is generally acknowledged to be-then all natural conditions shoidd be taken advantage of and all artificial handicaps that may in any way hinder its development should, as far as possible, be removed. By so doing not only would agriculture itself tend to become more permanent and prosperous but as a direct result every other industry in Canada would benefit.

I have great faith in Canadian agriculture. It is a great industry. It can be made still reater; and if the people of Canada generally, armers as well as business men, easterners as well as westerners, could be made to see the complete picture, could be given a vision that would show them all the varied and interlocking parts of this greatest of all Canadian industries; they would then understand the supreme necessity of cooperating in an endeavour to remove as far as possible, all handicaps in order that it may be placed on a permanent and prosperous basis, that Canada as a whole will be made to prosper as never before.

Other industries there are in Canada most certainly, but none reach the same standing or affect so many people as agriculture; and yet so little is being done to foster this basic industry. It is true that the government, even

The Address-Mr. Luchkovich

at the risk of their political lives, are trying to improve conditions by a rigid application of the policy of protection. But the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) surely cannot seriously contend that a high tariff wall will aid an industry dependent almost wholly upon a foreign market for the sale of its produce. It appears to me that the only person who can benefit thereby is the individual who owns a factory or lives on the stock dividends of a manufacturing enterprise; generally speaking it has very little consideration for the western prairie farmer. When one considers that only sixteen per cent of the national revenue is paid by the income tax levied on those privileged classes for whom protection has been primarily intended, and that most of our other taxes are raised by our excise and customs duties, which bear most heavily on those poor classes who are least able to pay, one cannot but feel that protection is an obnoxious form of legalized domestic piracy that allows the individual to rob the state by forbidding importation in order to prevent reasonable competition, and by creating monopolies in which rich men, who care more for coins than for human souls have absolute control.

My advocacy of agriculture as the basic industry of Canada, and my condemnation of protection as the weapon of the vested industries, will no doubt invite a charge of sectionalism; but my reply to those who may harbour such contradictory thoughts is to ask whether they honestly believe that farming is sectional. If my geography is correct, it is the most all-embracing industry in Canada. Show me a single province where agriculture is not a major calling; as for the prairie provinces, the other industries are so insignificant that they may be regarded as an almost negligible quantity. Agriculture is not sectional, Mr. Speaker; it is the most significant national problem which confronts us in Canada to-day, and as such should be given primary consideration in our deliberations during the present session.

In his pre-election speeches the Prime Minister promised to blast a way into the markets of the world and to foster agriculture in Canada. The unfortunate thing about dynamiting a channel to the foreign markets for our wheat, however, is the utter impossibility and futility of Canadian dictation with regard to the price our customers pay and also with regard to the fiscal policy that should be maintained in their respective countries. I do not believe our market in England can be retained by any hypothetical British political upheaval and consequent fiscal change; for it is hardly likely that any

overseas government, whether it be Liberal, Conservative or Labour, will ever dare put a tax on food products. Even if the British Isles were gravitating in that direction the Canadian farmer, in his present deplorable state, cannot afford to wait another hundred years for improved trade conditions depending upon a supposedly salutary political and fiscal uniformity in the British countries on both sides of the Atlantic ocean.

I think we can safely discount appeals to sentiment in matters of business. Kith and kin mean nothing in business relationships. As proof thereof, Mr. Speaker, witness the manner in which the British dealers and traders have passed up Canada in favour of the Argentine and Russia. It is all a matter of dollars and cents, the buying where goods are cheapest and the selling where it is most advantageous to do so. In my opinion that is the paramount reason why Russia, the Argentine and other countries have beaten us in the markets of the world. Therefore I say that the only way for the government to blast its way to the markets of the world is by beating our competitors at their own game, and in order to do this we must first successfully solve four problems. The first problem we must solve in Canada is how to produce more cheaply, how to bring about lower production costs. The next problem is how to produce better products, a better quality of exports. The third problem is how to market more economically, bring about better and cheaper marketing facilities, and the fourth is the provision of cheaper credit.

So far as the British market is concerned these fundamental questions apply just as they apply to any other country. For generations we have been accustomed to believe that the mother country should buy from us simply because she was the mother country. In recent years, however, the relationship has been more that of a stepmother. What Great Britain says to us is virtually this: "You are now grown up and it is time to look out for yourself. If you want to sell us anything you will have to do it on the same terms as any other country. You cannot expect to get something for nothing. If you want us to purchase more grain from you you must purchase more goods from us. We want reciprocal trade with you, but that trade must be of mutual benefit to both of us."

If reciprocal trade is the only common ground on which we can trade with Great Britain, Mr. Speaker, the government of the day should forthwith begin to pull down the barriers and handicaps that stand in the way

The Address-Mr. Luchkovich

of that trade, so that both countries will give each other what nature intended them to give and exchange their products freely for commodities they need but cannot manufacture or produce economically or in sufficient quantities at home. The proper way to foster agriculture is not by imposing new burdens but rather by lessening those burdens which already exist. What does it avail the Canadian farmer to have the tariff on his machinery raised from 6 per cent to 25 per cent? Undoubtedly the price of a binder is not lowered thereby, and as for the written promises about which this house has heard so much, with regard to the maintenance of existing prices, the western farmers has as much chance of a square deal in that regard as a race horse has of maintaining its usual pace with a dead weight attached to its neck.

If agriculture is to be fostered in Canada it will not be done by tariff increases, which tend to stabilize the prices of manufactured goods at their present high level without a corresponding increase in the levels of prices of agricultural products. While it is true that the grain growing industry cannot be protected by any kind of tariff legislation, it does not follow that the other industries should be given a hand-out which ultimately will have to be paid out of the pockets of the Canadian farmers. Prosperity in Canada can never return unless agricultural purchasing power is restored in proportion to agriculture's importance as an industry. I know this is a big bill for any government to fulfil, but it is nothing more than the economic justice which farmers have always claimed as the inherent right of 'agriculture. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the men who constitute our ultimate consumers and primary producers, the men who pay greatest proportion of our taxes, our freight rates and our interest, the men whose investment represents the largest part of our tangible wealth, but the earning power of which has remained much lower than that of every other industrial investment and development, have the right to demand through this house the same treatment for agriculture that is being given every other industry.

Let me repeat, Mr. Speaker, that in order to foster agriculture the handicaps which lie in the way first must be removed. One of these handicaps is our taxation system, of which as usual the farmer is made the goat. He pays a larger proportion of our taxes than any other class in Canada and gets hit coming and going in the process. Being an ultimate consumer he has no come-back. Although when he buys a pair of shoes the tax

is included he cannot pass on that tax by adding it to the price of the wheat he sells in the markets of the world. Therefore 1 sincerely hope, in view of these facts, that the government will refrain from making a bad situation worse by increasing the tariff, which will only tend to add to the already over-onerous burden the farmer has to bear.

I should like to say a great deal about freight rates also, but my time is very limited; I understand I have only five minutes left. I am very sorry that the speech from the throne gave no assurance of a decrease in freight rates to meet the depression now existing in agriculture. The farmer not only pays more taxes, more freight rates and more interest than any other class in Canada, but as between east and west the western farmer pays from 2 per cent to 3 per cent more interest than is paid by the eastern business man. Here again the government has a chance to foster agriculture by appropriate legislation which would not discriminate against the farmer. He has been discriminated against through excessive interest charges and his industry is in danger of going on the rocks by reason of an almost total withdrawal of credit.

I do not know what the Minister of Agriculture meant when he suggested that if the banks did not supply the farmer with credit someone else would do so, but I do know that the farmers of Alberta recognize the inadequacy of the existing credit system in meeting the present economic stringency. They believe that adequate distribution of credit is absolutely essential to the carrying on of the agricultural industry, and they recommend the complete nationalization of our credit system. They recommend further:

That as an immediate measure the federal government take steps to organize a federal reserve bank of issue and discount which bank shall be entirely under government control and shall provide credit at a reasonable rate of interest for all necessary productive and commercial enterprises.

We are convinced that the above proposal is imperative in order to get away from the present intolerable position in which the credit requirements of the public in general are sacrificed to the professed necessity of the charter banks to protect to the utmost their savings deposits.

This is a resolution which was passed at the farmers' convention in Calgary this January. Now, goods cannot be produced and distributed without the aid of credit; there is no doubt about that. If the banks of Canada, to which this very vital economic factor has been extended as a matter of privilege, refuse to continue giving credit they

will wake up some morning to find Canada destitute of goods and the people of Canada rising in their wrath and taking the matter out of their hands and placing it where it belongs, namely, in the hands of the nation, the people of Canada.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Alphonse Fournier

Liberal

Mr. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Hull) (Translation):

Mr. Speaker, I shall deliver my first speech in the house, in French. I first owe it to the riding that I represent and which is composed of a mixed population, the very large majority, of which, however, speak the French language. Moreover, I owe it to the province of Quebec, three-fourths of whose inhabitants are of French origin, and lastly I owe it to my country, one-third of whose people are of French descent. Furthermore, I am only following in the footsteps of my predecessors speaking the same tongue and belonging to the same race when I assert in this house the privileges and rights we possess. My aim is at the same (time that the French language be better respected by our English-speaking fellow-citizens and to induce them to learn and speak French. For some time past the harmony which exists among the various races in our country has been debated as well as that existing between the various provinces, the Dominion and provincial governments. Hardly were the speeches of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), the member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) and the member for Dauphin (Mr. Bowman) delivered, than we read in the local papers that this harmony is not so general as it was contended in the house, and that even, certain of these gentlemen were responsible for the existence of dissensions among us. I took the trouble to cut out from the Ottawa newspapers clippings with reference to certain remarks made by some citizens who are not particularly fond of our language and race. In the Droit of March 18, 1931 we read under the heading:

The Orangemen of Ontario score French teaching in public schools.

At a meeting on Tuesday, the Grand Black Chapter of Ontario East, of the Royal Black Knights of Ireland, at to-day's session protested against the teaching of French in public schools in Russell county and northern Ontario, and decided to petition the Ontario government to have this discontinued.

The chapter also objected to any proposals for the establishment of Roman Catholic

The Address-Mr. Fournier

institutional schools for boys, the upkeep of which is to be a charge on the funds of the public for education.

This clipping is published in another newspaper The Evening Journal of the same date, March 18, 1931. A few days later, March 20, we again witness our good friends begin anew in North Bay: La Presse of

March 20, publishes the following news: "The Orangemen demand the repeal of the separate school privileges."

North Bay, Ont., 20 (P.C.).-The delegates to the meeting of the Grand Lodge of western Ontario, Orangemen, adopted yesterday, at their closing session, a resolution requesting the repeal of all the amendments to the Separate School Act since 1863, which grant additional privileges to the separate schools of the province, and also requesting that all possible efforts be made to oppose other amendments having in view the granting of special privileges.

The French-Canadians, especially those in the district of Montreal, according to newspapers, thought fit to also protest against the action taken by the Prime Minister of Saskatchewan who had the crucifix or all religious emblems removed from the schools, and forbade priests and nuns teaching in the province, to wear their religious garb. The St. John the Baptist Society of Montreal adopted a resolution protesting against such action on the part of the Prime Minister of that province. I did not think it-it is true I lack experience-that hon. members of this house took part in suoh movements. I even was unaware that the member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull), during the elections of July,

1930, had also personally taken part in the struggle against the French language and the Quebec province. I was in error. In the Regina Star, of May 29 last, certain remarks of Mr. Turnbull were published, they were not very flattering for his colleagues of Quebec. May I quote the Droit of March 20,

1931. This newspaper publishes and comments on the following article taken from the Regina Star of March 29 last:

Mr. Turnbull stated that the French influence of Quebec was thrown in the scale against the Conservatives because of the measures taken by the provincial government to free the schools of influences which are inconsistent with the public school system, and in support of this proof, Mr. Turnbull in a dramatic flourish, waves above his head a copy of the Patriote de l'Ouest published in Prince Albert. This newspaper, he states, advertises that an examination in French will be held in the schools of all French-speaking districts of the province. Prizes will be offered for the best papers following the examination, with the idea of propagating our beautiful language.

This newspaper, he continues, publishes a list of donations of these prizes, and many of them are residents of the province of Quebec.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Joseph-François Laflèche

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LAFLECHE (Translation):

Mr. King

stated that there did not exist any crisis previous to the election.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT (Translation):

The worst

crisis was the one which brought about the return of the hon. member.

The Address-Mr. Fournier

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Alphonse Fournier

Liberal

Mr. FOURNIER (Translation):

I cannot

recall having read that the leader of the Liberal party had contended that there was no crisis. We even contend that it was a world-wide crisis. Moreover, intelligent people know this to be a fact. One had but to inquire and read so as to verify that this crisis existed throughout the world, but was specially felt among the nations with a high tariff. It was in Australia, in the United States and Germany that the people suffered the most from the economic crisis and, to-day, it is still in Australia that the people suffer the most from the effects of the crisis. If we refer to the newspapers of these last days, we find that in January, in the United States, where high protection existed even before the Conservatives raised our tariff in September, there were six million unemployed. We never contended that there was no crisis, however, we maintained that the Canadian government was not to 'be held entirely responsible for that crisis. During his campaign, for a time at least, the present Prime Minister, contended that this crisis was caused by the Liberal administration; he even stated in one of his speeches:

Nine years of wasted effort, before the great betrayal. Can you permit these men to govern you any longer? There should be no unemployment in Canada with a proper fiscal policy.

Some time later, after the election of July 28, it was necessary for the government to take steps to relieve unemployment. The Minister of Labour called a meeting of all the representatives of the various provinces so as to gather information on the unemployment situation in their respective provinces. In his speech at the opening of the conference, the minister rather changes his views and admits, the elections being over, that the unemployment situation was not due to the bad administration or fiscal policy of the Liberal government. The following is his statement:

"I do not for a moment suggest that the present unemployment is due to any governmental activity or lack of governmental activity. Unemployment is not purely a Canadian problem. It is world-wide."

He therefore tells us after the elections, that it was a world-wide problem. They were in power, it behooved them bo relieve unemployment. Did they do so? Not at all. They have but one remedy which they wish to apply in all circumstances. Did they apply it? Did they decrease unemployment? Did they fulfil their pledges? Any serious-minded man must ask himself whether those who were to perform miraculous cures succeeded, and whether their eight months of administration gave beneficial results to the people.

Did the raising of the tariff in September produce the results expected? I frankly admit that I mingle quite a little with the people. In my riding the working people outnumber the others; the professional class is limited; those in trade are not very numerous, because we deal largely with the capital; there are also manufacturers. Since the raising of the tariff in September I have heard but one manufacturer say that it had had good results. I highly respect Mr. Drury who is the president of the largest industrial company of my city. Some time ago Mr. Drury was present at a banquet of the chamber of commerce in Hull and I had the privilege and pleasure of being seated next to him. I was unaware that politics would be broached at that meeting. However, the last part of his speech was very touching. He also tried to raise the morale of the people of Hull. In closing his remarks he said: "We already feel the beneficial results of the raising of the tariff." The following day, quite upset, and to seek information, I consulted many of the unemployed of the city and not one had found work since the raising of the tariff; they were still among those who needed direct assistance. The upward revision of the tariff has been of benefit to Mr. Drury, I have no doubt. He is a financier, a business man, a manufacturer. I know that he profits by it and I am happy that some of our fellow citizens can reap some advantage from high duties; however, I think that the Conservative government, at the present moment, should also consider the citizens of cities who do not benefit or, if so, very little, from high tariff.

The government would be doing useful work by teaching the people how to make use of business-like methods in their affairs, just as the King government carried on during nine years, that is, spend less than its revenue and economize in order that, when Conservative governments turn up, there may be some savings to face poverty and unemployment which will always be present. Has high tariff increased business? I do not think so. It increases it in the case of some industries which profit by it, but it is not less true that other industries suffer by it. Of late the discount on imported cars was increased. That was to help our manufacturers. All American automobile companies were to establish themselves in Canada. None have come yet that I know. Some seem to forget, notwithstanding the protests of automobile importers, that this legislation or higher tariff is detrimental to a number of our people. Some seem to forget that the automobile importers had invested a capital of $30,000,000, that there were

10,000 employees in that industry and that by

The Address-Mr. Fournier

increasing the tariff their sales would decrease. Many of these automobile importers will have to discontinue business and thereby increase the number of unemployed. We have all received the statement of the Canadian Automobile Importers Association, where much information can be found. The above figures are taken from that statement. In certain circles it was not thought that the automobile importers would have to discontinue their operations. They were in error. In the Droit of March 18, I note the following passage:

W. H. MacIntyre, general manager of the Ottawa Car Garage iand the Ottawa Car Manufacturing, stated this morning to the Droit that his company would discontinue the sale of Marmon and Nash automobiles as well as the Federal trucks. He explained that the sales branch yields no profit owing to the recent tariff restrictions on automobiles of American make sold by the Ottawa Car Garage. Mr. MacIntyre did not wish to further specify.

The rumour spread that the large establishments of the Ottawa Car Garage and the Ottawa Car Manufacturing Company would soon close their doors. Mr. MacIntyre gave out that it was false and that only the Sales Branch of the Ottawa Car Garage, would be discontinued. The garage itself, and the automobile repair shops would carry on. About fifteen men are affected by this decision.

Should this business close, necessarily employees will be thrown out of work, and they will have to wait, in order to get a job, that the American companies establish factories in this country. They must suffer in the meantime. This proves that the tariff, while it helps on the one hand may be on the other detrimental.

I also found out that the mills of the Ste. Anne Paper Co., at Beaupre, will close their doors at the end of the month for an indefinite time. The superintendent of the mills says that this decision will result in increasing from 300 to 400 the number of unemployed. It is thought that these mills will remain closed for a year.

An hon. MEMBER (Translation): Is that the wish of the hon. member?

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain

Liberal

Mr. CASGRAIN (Translation):

The

Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) stated during his election campaign that the workingmen would have work every day.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Samuel Gobeil

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GOBEIL (Translation):

It is the

outcome of Taschereau's policy.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Alphonse Fournier

Liberal

Mr. FOURNIER (Translation):

I have but one suggestion to make before I close my remarks, and it is not a personal one. I came to the conclusion, after the election of July 28 last, that I had certain responsibilities to discharge which I had not previously to that date, and I have endeavoured in the

meantime to obtain information. I am one of those new members who have much good will but little knowledge of politics, however, I hope to acquire some before my mandate ends, and I shall fulfil my duties to the best of my ability. I think that, during the period of prosperity that we have enjoyed of late, it would have been wise to teach economy to (the people tundler the influence of manufacturers, industrial firms, speculators, advertisements, by campaigns known as "high pressure salesmanship ' and by other means, conditions were so upset that the people, the workers who had plenty of work did not restrict themselves to their budget but spent extravagantly. I think it behooves men in public life to teach the people to develop in family life the spirit of thrift and to teach them to live according to itheir means. If family life is on a solid foundation in a country or city, you may rest assured that the city itself will have a wise and economic administration. And to carry this a step further the well administered city will help toward improving the administration of the province and so on until we reach the government of the country. However, I do not think that it behooves only men in public life and the government to carry on this education. It behooves the business man to do a little of this education among his employees. I am perhaps wrong, but by what I gather from the newspapers, heads of industries, manufacturers and business men seem to have one aim in view, that of producing and selling so as to draw dividends at ithe end of their financial year-and dividends as large as possible. They endeavour to increase their turn-over, forgetting the human element which enters in their various industries and especially having in mindi-in a selfish manner, their capital, which is to bring them large returns.

I do not know whether Henry Ford is persona grata with the members of this house, however, he sometimes says things which are full of common sense. Some time ago, I cut out the following passage from one of his articles:

The foundation of prosperity is the family. Each family is, or should be, its own business manager. The material affairs of a family are as much a business as the affairs of an industrial corporation.

He added that many families understand this but that the number is not sufficiently large.

And, further on, another passage of this article strongly drew my attention:

The people can be no more extravagant than business reduces them to be; they can go no

The Address-Mr. Fournier

farther into debt than business permits them to go; they can gamble only when business- or something that passes under that name- provides the opportunity.

That is to say that it places on business men the responsibility of not giving the people the necessary education in prevision of. years of depression. I think that this

situation will always exist in the world; periods of depression will follow periods of prosperity, and if the people are well prepared by educational campaigns, we shall have accomplished a great step towards the general welfare of our country.

I do not wish to further delay the house. I have a few words to add in support of the remarks of my colleague from Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) with reference to the civil servants. During the Liberal government regime, all seemed quiet in this circle of society. The civil employees carried on, assured that their salaries would be paid, and that at the end of the year they would be given their statutory increase. They lived in peace of mind which, of late, seems to have been disturbed. The present government, I do not know whether it is in a spirit of economy or whether with a view of replacing the staffs of some departments-allow certain information to leak out to the effect that three hundred temporary employees in some departments only, will soon be thanked for their services. I do not know whether the government will do so. I openly state that this will in no way help in the good administration of the various departments and in no manner will it help to relieve unemployment existing in our district.

There is also talk of retiring those who have reached the age of 65. It is sometimes among these persons that the most efficient employees are to be found, owing to their long experience. I think that one should move slowly in this connection. I am told-

I have no personal knowledge in this matter -that already a deputy minister who had reached the age of 65, has been retired, and, by the irony of fate, he was replaced, it seems, by a person who has reached 70 years.

I question whether it is for the better administration of that department.

The suppression of the statutory increase for all those who receive more than S2,500, is talked about. I shall point out that the more the salary of an employee is high, the greater his obligations to society, both as regards to his family and himself. I do not think that the time is ripe to economise-in salary increases and especially to retire persons who can still render great services to the country owing to their knowledge and experience. As

long as I have a seat in the house, I shall closely scrutinize whether the dismissals are really justified.

I might, moreover, discuss the threats of dismissals made to postmasters and some employees of my riding, but I think that later on I shall have the opportunity of debating these questions.

In closing my remarks-as my leader so soundly stated last week-I believe that in a government, there is not only the material side, the practical side of affairs to consider, but there is also the brains, the intelligence and things which pertain to the mind. Our aim is to have a country as great and beautiful as any country in the world, composed of two great races which will one day love one another if they learn the two official languages of the country, and all my efforts will be directed in that direction.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Charles Napoléon Dorion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. C. N. DORION (Quebec-Montmo-rency) (Translation):

Mr. Speaker, it is the

custom of parliament to congratulate His Honour, the Speaker of the House. I also wish to fufil this agreeable duty, and thank the house for having elected you. You have proved, in a most striking way, that you were endowed with the required qualities: intelligence, moderation and impartiality. However, what has struck me more, is your knowledge of the two official languages and the use you make of both in presiding over our debates. This feature reveals a breadth of view and a deep rooted sentiment of true Canadianism.

The hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne), your deputy, knows too well the esteem in which I hold him, it is therefore unnecessary for me to remind him of it. For over fifteen years, in our district, we have fought the same battles, pursued the same ideal with the firm desire to shake off the yoke of prejudices and to restore in our midst the sound principles of order, progress and peace.

It is also a custom, sir, to thank the artisans of one's victory. I shall do it with so much the more pleasure and pride, knowing that I had the help, during the campaign, of very brilliant political leaders and such outstanding speakers as the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King).

I had to battle as you are aware, against Mr. Lavigueur, then and still mayor of the city of Quebec, moreover member for Quebee-Montmorency in the late parliament. This gentleman held therefore two mandates. That was a sufficient reason for the right hon.

The Address-Mr. Dorion

leader of the opposition to denounce, here in Ottawa, one week before the vote, the double mandate, and appealed to the electorate of the capital of the Dominion to vote against Mayor Plant. Evidently the then Prime Minister, now the leader of the opposition, had before him the example of my predecessor, and he had derived from it precious lessons for his party. As close to 5,000 unemployed in the city of Quebec awaited the return of their mayor, my constituents deemed it their duty not to reelect him, complying, at the same time, with the wishes and the voice of the right hon. leader of the opposition. My sincerest thanks.

The hon. Prime Minister of Quebec contributed his share, not only by his speeches but also by the presence of his lean figure. Among the 25 parishes which are comprised in the Quebec-Montmorency riding, about 10 are included in Montmorency which is represented in the provincial legislature by Mr. Taschereau. It is especially there that he concentrated his energies, it is there that he constructed his legendary bridge which must some day link the northern coast of the river with the Isle of Orleans and over which project my predecessor was successful in building at least four elections.

Of course they were pledges, and nothing more. Nothing more was needed. The two parishes that this election bridge was to link gave me a very substantial majority.

It was also in that part of my riding that the Prime Minister of Quebec announced the Indian war, reorganized the riding, and denounced the present Prime Minister of Canada, as one of the fiercest opponents of our race, our language and traditions.

The following are a few examples of this eloquence profusely used by this politician who, in certain quarters, is looked upon as a great statesman. In the Soleil of Quebec, July 18, 1930, we read:

On the 28 inst. the Liberal party will be in power and you would have, you from Quebec county, Mr. C. N. Dorion to represent you? No, think of our race. We have too many fine traditions, too many ideals to safeguard that we should place our trust in Mr. Bennett, the right hand of Mr. Anderson who abolished the crucifix in schools and told the good nuns: '[DOT]You cannot teach in your religious garb."

An hon. MEMBER (Translation): It is a

fact.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Charles Napoléon Dorion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DORION (Translation):

There is no

truth in the statement as made by the Prime Minister of Quebec. _

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Charles-Édouard Ferland

Liberal

Mr. FERLAND (Translation):

Does the

hon. member approve or not of the acts of Anderson?

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Charles Napoléon Dorion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DORION (Translation):

I shall say

to the member for Joliette that he will have my answer in due time and place.

Here is what was said at Ste. Anne de Beaupre by Mr. Taschereau who, on this occasion, was accompanied by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain), as published in the Gazette of Montreal, of July 21, 1930:

"The first thing Mr. Anderson did was to attempt to take the crucifixes out of the French schools of that western province," said Mr. Taschereau. "When Mr. Bennett went to Saskatchewan, who stood by his side on the platform? It was the same Premier Anderson. Are we to place our French Canadian rights, our traditions and future welfare in such hands?

"You French Canadians standing before me, you mothers and fathers, do you realize the responsibilities upon your shoulders? It rests with you how your children should be brought up. You are responsible for their education and spiritual welfare. You must see that they in turn become worthy members of our race. Think well before you decide which government you endorse."

This text needs no comment, for the greater shame of the one who uttered it.

The success which I obtained in that part of my riding is a worthy answer to this high-bidding for votes and these paltry appeals to prejudices, a method in honour in the Liberal party of the province of Quebec for the last thirty years and of which Mr. Taschereau was one of the first to start.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret

Liberal

Mr. RINFRET (Translation):

I do not

wish to be discourteous towards the hon. member, however, may I be permitted to point out to him that if it be wrong to say these things, it is still worse to do them as it was done by Mr. Anderson from Saskatchewan.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Charles Napoléon Dorion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DORION (Translation):

What we

find wrong, sir, is to ascribe to the right hon. Prime Minister of this country intentions attributable to another political man in Canada.

The hon. Senator Beland also paid us a gracious visit in the course of the campaign. It was at St-Gregoire de Montmorency, a village of 6,000 inhabitants grouped around a cotton mill. The hon. senator made a splendid speech and also spoke, like all the others, of war and conscription, lauded the benefits of the Dunning budget, without however mentioning the clauses referring to textiles. A few days later, a number of the people of this village learned that the brilliant speaker was in the county of Beauce and had declared himself against all customs duties on textile imports. Such skill could not pass unnoticed.

The Address-Mr. Dorion

A splendid Conservative majority was gained in that Liberal fortress. I cannot but help thanking the hon. senator.

As to the Hon. Lucien Cannon, who also paid us a visit, I shall refer you, sir, to the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) who is better informed than anybody with reference to the precious help Mr. Cannon was to him and to all of us in the district of Quebec, by his charges and appeals to prejudices, conscription and war,

However, sir, the all important factor of our great victory in Quebec, was the strong personality of the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada. Through his truly Canadian political stand, his extensive knowledge, his economic science, the consistency of his statements both in the east and west, the Prime Minister won the hearts and esteem of my fellow-citizens. It will not be long before he wins their deep gratitude.

Still another factor of our victory was the entry, into the federal arena, of two men who had already played a considerable part in the provincial legislature: the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) and the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau.)

The first, the acknowledged and admired champion of the Conservative doctrines in our province, inspired confidence among a great number of our compatriots. His knowledge and the experience which he acquired in the course of his long political career, the friendship which he has always manifested towards the true champions of his party, the esteem which he has always enjoyed among his own people inspire us whith great confidence.

The wide legal experience of the hon. Minister of Marine, his memorable struggle in the provincial field, were also a precious encouragement for the exponents of the party.

I may add, how pleased we were, we hailing from the district of Quebec, of the right hon. Prime Minister's choice in inviting one of our own people, whose ability is known to us, the hon. Solicitor General, to accompany him to the Imperial conference.

I hope, sir, to have the opportunity, in the course of future debates to explain the needs of my province, of my district and riding; but I wish to state now that my constituents, themselves, do not only live on bread. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) for whom I have a deep admiration, although I do not always share his views, knows this quite well, for he came one day, about 1908, in my riding during an election which still lingers in our memory.

My constituents have equally confided in me the mandate of expressing their views, sentiments and opinions on the various questions of a national and economic order which were raised in the course of the last election. These views, sentiments and opinions are also those of 23 other ridings in Quebec, uniting with the 112 ridings of the other provinces of confederation which brought to the leader of the Conservative party the support which he needed for the triumph of his economic and political doctrines. Without us, without the province of Quebec, the country, as in the last nine years, would have probably been at the mercy of a coalition government without guidance or fixed principles. Thanks to the stand of our province, thanks to the breaches made in the solid bloc, the government will not only reign but govern. More than ever are we in need of a government that is in a position to govern.

I do not intend, sir, to return to what has been said, in the house, with reference to the economic crisis. May I, however, be permitted to add a few comments of a universal, national and provincial aspect.

The first cause of .this world-wide crisis is to be found in the overproduction of raw material and produces of the soil. The financial crisis was an immediate sequel of this over-production. This financial crisis was intensified by the artificial maintenance of prices. It is to these two crises: the crisis of overproduction and that of finance, that we must attribute, to-day, this industrial and trade depression which is felt the world over.

I spoke, a few moments ago, of over-production. This is especially evident in food products, such as wheat, sugar, coffee, etc. The same phenomenon happened for certain raw materials used in basic industries: coal, cotton, wool, leather, etc. While production was increasing, as a natural sequel, according to economists, we had inadequate consumption. The Great war brought on an era of intense production in all branches. Part of mankind was unceasingly consuming while the other part was unceasingly producing. When peace was concluded!, (production continued to increase and certain consuming countries became producers. Conditions were completely upset in the world. A great wave of economic nationalism took place, each country endeavoured to develop its own industries in order to become selfsustaining. In certain parts of the world, to counteract this overproduction the policy of price pegging was inaugurated. It was an

The Address-Mr. Dorion

artificial policy which could not succeed And, by the way, sir, I congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister for not having accepted the idea of pegging the price of wheat in Canada. Not only this policy would have as a consequence greatly burdened the national budget, but it would have had the same result as the pegging of prices for coffee, sugar and rubber. For if this policy stimulated production during a certain period, it led to the decrease of consumption through the -stagnation of capital and credit. Under-consumption is the sequel of overproduction. While the countries of Europe were carrying on war, the markets of the far east were closed to them, Japan organized its industries. If we add to this tthe unrest in India, the revolution in China and in many countries of Asia, the political disturbance in South America, it is so many markets closed to producing countries.

The destruction of factories in Belgium and northern France has put those countries under the necessity of rebuilding their entire equipment from top to bottom and according to the most up-to-date plans. This reorganization enabled them to compete successfully, on certain markets, with those countries when old-fashioned industrial methods were still in use. But what further entangled matters was the Russian upheaval and the well-known five-year plan.

While the people of Russia go barefoot, enormous quantities of footwear are being exported to England; while the Russian workers are rationed, shiploads of wheat sail from the Black sea bound for England and other countries where it is sold at prices so low that no capitalist nation can compete against them.

I do homage, Mr. Speaker, to the great Canadian statesman, ithe Prime Minister of our country, who was the first t.o teach to the world by his own example, that no Christian nation should have any business relations with countries where the people are veritable outcasts among the states, due to the misdeeds of their political leaders.

I repeat that the Russian unheaval, the civil strife in China, the Hindu boycott, the insurrection in Asia, the disturbance in Latin America, have put the world's trade in a very bad way.

This crisis was felt in our own country, but its effect was much more serious than necessary due to the blind policy followed for nine years by the Liberal administration. From 1921 to 1930 was a time of wilful blindness, of reckless optimism, of misunderstanding complete and absolute. Canada was thrown wide open to the products of all kinds of foreign countries; the balance of trade was always against us; we must remember these things also if we wish to grasp the reason for the economic crisis which is upon us.

Mr. Tardieu, former prime minister of the French Republic, had this to say of the world

crisis:

Although, quite evidently, we may not control the doings of outside markets we are most assuredly masters, and responsible masters, of what goes on in our own markets. That is our business; as President Roosevelt used to say, our game may be right, or it may be wrong; but there is no doubt of our right to play.

With the optimism which was their weakness, the Liberals did not ask themselves whether they played the game properly; they simply did not play at all.

We were no longer masters in our own house, our home markets did not belong to us. If we had remained under this antiCanadian regime, if our people had not thrown off the yoke, where would we find ourselves to-day, with foreign competition growing stronger in every way, and with our own markets wiped out? It is strange, to say the least, that a young country like ours, which despite its share in the world war had suffered a great deal less than France, for instance, should have been so severely affected by the economic depression following the war. As the right hon. prime minister of Canada has pointed out, nothing shows more clearly the total lack of foresight on the part of our former government.

The Liberal government instead of anticipating the crisis, instead of adhering to a sound policy of protection for its own people, thought that Canada should become a dumping-ground for all the nations of Europe and should gladly admit thousands upon thousands of immigrants to her shores. From 1921 to 1926, we spent $13,000,000 for the purpose of settling strangers in our midst. During the same period thousands of Canadians were leaving home, migrating to more hospitable countries. Was this merely favoritism towards our transportation companies, or did our opponents imagine that a country can be built out of all sorts of materials, like a mosaic? With the importation of foreign products came the importation of foreign labour. And our Liberal friends expect us to cure in a short six months the evils resulting from nine years of misrule! I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of congratulating the government on the vigour of its immigra-

The Address-Mr. Dorion

tion policy; I beg them to believe that this gesture will be memorable in the annals of our country's growth.

During all this time, in the province of Quebec, our opponents, under the spell of the same radiant blindness, were selling our national resources to the foreigner, sacrificing agriculture to industry and business, legalizing the unlawful acquisition of vast stretches of land under cultivation, for the benefit of foreign capitalists; they encouraged the overproduction of paper, established town sites where agricultural centres were already in existence, drained our countryside of its workers who were shepherded into artificial towns which to-day are on the verge of bankruptcy. After ten years of such a policy, we realize to-day that their frog-town that Mr. Taschereau tried to swell beyond the ox s size, is blowing up, that the paper mills are closing down one after the other, thus throwing hundreds of workers on the streets.

Is it any wonder that thousands of unemployed are to-day walking the streets of our cities, with nothing to fall back upon, hopeless-farming folk of yesteryear, fascinated by these artificial cities?

It was in our province also, whose business policy was praised by the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin) that the excessive intervention of the state in private undertakings hampered and even-in certain cases-* prevented the necessary accumulation of private capital and its investment in private enterprise. We must make radical changes in our province if we wish to feel the beneficial effect of the economic recovery that the present government is bringing about through the wise and effective measures it has adopted since coming into power. Despite these obstacles of a local nature, which our friends of the opposition must answer for, I can say definitely that the efforts of our present government have already borne fruit; there is abroad to-day, amongst private individuals and in the business world, a finer spirit of generous confidence.

As I recalled a few moments ago, another act that brought joy to the hearts of our people, was the closing of our Canadian markets against all imports from Russia. Just when Ottawa was adopting an order in council to this effect the provincial government of Quebec was -putting a similar measure through the legislature.

Why is it that our friends of the Liberal party did not give expression to any such desire when a Liberal government was in power at Ottawa? Did they take this way of showing their faith in the firmness, the disinterestedness of the right hon. Prime Minister

of this country? Have they begun to realize that the country is far better off in the hands of men who can act freely, heedless of the narrowing exigencies of cliques, and beyond the need of continual bartering with radical elements? There you have a fine certificate of impotence addressed to the former government.

In acting thus, Mr. Speaker, the government of our country has given proof of all its affection, all its esteem, all its consideration for the workers of Canada. He has condemned the conscription of labour without remuneration, the brutalizing system enforced on the Russian proletariat, under guise of safeguarding their liberty. It is also an act of the highest social and moral importance, since it condemns anarchy and all forms of disorder, the overturning of values and of institutions.

The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and his colleagues of Quebec were worried, during the last campaign, at the thought that the present Prime Minister might go to represent Canada at the Imperial conference. The voters laughed at his misgivings; and the attitude taken by our Canadian delegation has thrown new lustre on our own dear country. Like Mackenzie Bowell in 1824, the Canadian Prime Minister asked for preferential reciprocity without striving to hide the fact that he was guided first and foremost by the interests of Canada. It is plain that the precedence claimed for the interests of his own country by the leader of each delegation does not exclude his devotion to those of the empire, -but our Prime Miniser was applying in the sphere of economics the principle successfully upheld by Sir Robert Borden, thanks to which Canada was finally recognized at the League of Nations as an independent and self-governing member of the empire

This attitude was particularly pleasing to the province of Quebec. Tied to her soii with all the fibre of her soul, guardian of her language, her laws and her tradition, enamoured of her past filled with trials and moral conquests, she wishes her mother country to stand by itself and to include no other land than Canada: her duties, as her rights, cease at the border line of Canadian territory. There you have Quebec's idea of patriotism; that is our understanding of national sentiment. This Canadian sentiment must beware of two dangers, both from the outside: Americanism and colonialism. Americanism which signifies for us, on the one hand, a young people, weak, made up of two distinct races, each with its own temperament, its own ethnical character;

The Address-Mr. Boulanger

on the other, a giant people, rich, powerful, intoxicated with their own strength, their wealth, their power, and sending out beyond their own borders their ideas, their tastes and their morals. The process has been described as the moral, mental and economic annexation of the first by the second, of the weak by the strong: the wolf swallowing the lamb. We may dispense with a definition of colonialism. The right hon. leader of the opposition gave a good example of it in this house last May when 'he interrupted the present Prime Minister who was expounding his doctrine of Canada First, with the query: " But what about the British Empire?"

As to those obstacles of a purely Canadian character which are apt to irritate the national sentiment of my fellow French Canadians may I quote the following from an article written by the director of Le Devoir on August 27th, 1910:

In other words the French Canadian will love and uphold the bond of Empire and British institutions as long as will be recognized their right to freely discuss all problems involving the national future of Canada; if they are not forced to assume, first the glory of Great Britain, burdens and responsibilities which the constitution and simple justice do not impose upon them; and especially if they find throughout the length and breadth of Canada a political and social system which allows of their cultural organization, permits them to foster their mother-tongue and to bring up their children in the love of their traditions both religious and national.

What we strive for is the preservation of the federative spirit and the mutual respect of the two great races who inhabit this country. An eminent citizen of France, Count Saint-Aulaire, once said:

Speaking politically, if an admixture of British genius and French genius were possible, it would shield us from error; just as an alliance between the British fleet and the French army would save us from aggression.

We of the Conservative party, have already proven the possibility of this blending process; it was eminent statesmen imbued with these principles who, in Ontario, generously reorganized our compatriots' right to be educated and taught in the language and in the religion of their forefathers. I long for the dawn of the same intelligent spirit in Saskatchewan for the disapprovance of the mean and narrow-minded persecution of all we hold dear. At a time like the present when, more than ever, we should unite, should understand one another, why waste our energies in quarrelling among ourselves? That sort of thing is unknown in the experience 22110-18

of Quebec province, because that province has always respected in its entirety the agreement signed with the other provinces in 1867.

One of my remote ancestors, Antoine-Aime Dorion, fought with all his might against the compact, before its adoption. He foresaw the struggles we have had to wage since 1867. He abided by the decision of the majority, however, willy-nilly, once it was reached; and even took his seat in this house. Several thought as he did in opposition to Sir Georges-Etienne Cartier; but once the covenant had been signed on behalf of the province that was the end of all dissension among us-there was no further distinction between victor and vanquished.

On behalf of my constituency, on behalf of my province, for the greater welfare of my country, I claim the same measure of justice for my compatriots throughout this continent. Under the intelligent and energetic leadership of the Prime Minister of this country I believe in the future, I trust that the day will come when Canada will know the full enjoyment of peace, harmony and progress at home; of moral, political and economic independence abroad, within the fold of the great British Empire. Let us have faith. Let us face the present with courage. Let us believe in the future. Let those of us who are of French descent, draw that courage from the history of those who, three hundred years ago, discovered this vast country and colonized it; and you, fellow-citizens of English origin, may find this courage in the patriotism of those royalists who suffered so deeply to remain loyal to their king. Let us unite; let us work together to build up a great country.

Mr. OSCAR L, BOULANGER (Belle-chasse) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, like the

two hon. gentlemen who preceded me I shall speak in my mother tongue since this is the first, time I have addressed the house this session. Naturally, French is much easier for me than English; but if my speech is not in English it is not through any reason of indolence, it is rather because I wish to affirm our right to express ourselves in our own language within the walls of the House of Commons of Canada. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that this right will always exist in our country no matter what Mr. Anderson of Saskatchewan, and the Regina Star, may say. I am convinced that the good common sense of the Canadian people will overcome these

The Address-Mr. Boulanger

appeals to fanaticism, these hollow, dishonest notions sown here and there throughout the country with the sole purpose of gaining power or, once successful, of keeping it.

My first thought, Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in the house this year must be for the good people who do me the honour of electing me to represent them here. So I shall take advantage of this debate on the speech from the throne to place before the government the extremely critical and painful plight of the people in the northern part of my riding.

I am happy, Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. LaVergne), to see you present here to-night; I am glad to see my good friend from Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) here, too. I know that the same distressful situation exists in the northern part of your own counties. I ask my two excellent colleagues to help me make the government understand how real is the need of the inhabitants of our constituencies; but especially to help me in my efforts to have this situation remedied. My colleagues know it, if the government does not, there is real hardship in that part of the province of Quebec.

In the parish of St. Camille, for instance, which is the upper parish of the county of Bellechasse, and touches the Maine boundary, I could mention fifty cases of the blackest poverty, people who haven't enough to eat, who are in need of clothing and of all the necessaries of life. I feel sure things are not better in the two neighbouring counties.

Why? Because there is no work in the woods. The people of these parts derive their livelihood almost entirely from working in the woods; they are lumberjacks rather than farmers. Up to now farming has been a side-line with them. They were mainly employed in the woods and tended their farms only when they had nothing else to do.

This year the border is practically closed. The people I am speaking of cannot take jobs in the Maine woods like they used to do. In Quebec province itself lumbering operations have been very much curtailed and wages have been cut enormously. Those who succeed in getting work in the lumber-camps receive in the way of pay barely enough to live.

Only last Sunday I saw at least a hundred of these lumberjacks, easily recognizable by their peculiar manner of dress and their sun-tanned features, going in a body to the soup kitchen in St. Pie Street, Quebec, where the Salvation Army serves free meals. These

[Mr. Boulanger.3

poor men come back from the woods without a cent in their pockets and to be fed must appeal to public charity. They spend the day around the railway stations or walking the streets; they have just enough money to pay their fare back home. Such is the plight of the lumber workers in the part of the province of Quebec that I have the honour to represent with my two excellent neighbours.

As I said a moment ago, the inhabitants of these parts worked almost exclusively in the lumber camps. On their land they did only what work was absolutely necessary to obtain their letters-patent; once they had got them they seldom troubled to cultivate them further. These farms are not sufficiently developed to feed those who cultivate them; that is why these men had to find some additional means of earning a living. They had to get work in the woods. To employ a picturesque phrase I heard some time back, these folk, instead of getting a living out of their farms, are bound to feed the farmer. In the summer season they spend on their farms what money they have earned in the lumber camps during the winter.

How could we solve this problem? What remedy should we apply to the situation I have just described? I have no hesitation in indicating just what that remedy is. Besides, the idea is not mine. More than once it has been put forward by others and I have no scruples, as was the case with the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) when he was leading the opposition last year. On one occasion after he had been more than usually violent in his denunciation of the government's laws, he was asked: "If you were in our place what would you do?", and his answer was: "Wait until I am at the head of the government; I'll tell you then what I intend to do." His reply was somewhat on a par with that made a while ago by my hon. friend from Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion): "I'll answer when the proper time comes"; all of which is not very conducive to practical progress in the House of Commons. I have no hesitation in suggesting a remedy to this sorry state of affairs among the people of my riding. In my humble opinion these backwoodsmen or backwoods settlers should be given the means to clear their lands in such a way that the lands woud furnish a living to whoever worked them.

Some time ago I had the honour, in company with several local members, of going with His Lordship, Bishop Plante, before the Hon. Mr. Tasohereau, premier of the province, to explain this situation to him and suggest that clearing bounties or ploughing bounties

The Address-Mr. Boulanger

be given to these settlers so as to permit of their getting a decent return from their agricultural labours. Unfortunately the prime minister of the province, like the prime minister here, also holds the portfolio of finance; and when we put forward the above suggestion we were answered not by the Prime Minister, but by the Minister of Finance, that the scheme would prove too costly. I have been shown estimates which indicate that such aid to the settlers would cost some three million dollars. Like the governments of all the other provinces, that of Quebec feels the shock of bad times, although Quebec can still show a surplus which is not true of our sister provinces. Hence my appeal to our federal authorities, which I hope my very good neighbours will support. I know they will not refuse my request. I ask the government of Canada to cooperate with the government of Quebec in granting clearing bounties or ploughing bounties to the settlers in the northern regions of these counties so they may be enabled to become real farmers and get their living from the land, and no longer find it necessary to work in the lumber camps during the winter.

I hope this plan will be put into operation along with several other plans made practical through the cooperation of the provincial governments. There is no more objection to these clearing or ploughing bounties than there was to old age pensions, unemployment relief, agricultural credits, technical education, roadway improvements, and the other numerous schemes brought to fruition through the cooperation of Ottawa and the provinces. During the recess, since last September, I discussed the matter with the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart). He was most courteous and tried to point out that the unemployment relief act did not allow of any portion of the $20,000,000 voted last September being spent for the furtherance of any such plan as I suggested. There was no need of telling me that because at the September session the government never gave a single thought to agriculture, not a thought. They were looking after the manufacturing classes. The farming community was entirely forgotten; that is why we must bring up the question of these terrible hardships to-day. Or rather they did think of agriculture, but in an indirect way. They saw to it that the farmer had to pay a higher price for every manufactured product he must buy. The cost of living was increased; but there was no increase in the price of what the farmer has to sell.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to correct certain errors committed by my hon. friend from Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dor-22110-181

ion). He spoke of appeals to prejudice and especially of the notorious issue of conscription which he accused the Liberals of bringing up in every election camaign. As ill luck would have it, our Conservative friends were the ones to bring up the question of conscription during the last campaign, in my riding at least. Their main argument was that the Liberal government had become conscrip-tionistwhen it admitted to its ranks the Hon. Mr. Crerar, a partisan of conscription and a member of the former Union government. We were also told about the Hon. Mr. Fielding who became Minister of Finance in the Liberal administration after 1921, and who, it seems, was also in favour of conscription. And the Liberal party was violently upbraided for having admitted to the cabinet conscrip-tkmists like t'he Hon. Mr. Fielding and the Hon. Mr. Crerar.

The member for Quebec-Montmorency spoke on immigration. Our hon. friend is new to the house; knowing how well-disposed he is I feel sure that his mistake was purely involuntary, and that he will be pleased to have matters set right. We who have been in the house longer than he, know that what he claims to be the Conservative policy in matters of immigration is an entirely new departure for the Conservative party. We who have been here for some years remember that in this house the conservative party was always clamoring for more and more immigration; and that the chief fault found with the Liberal administration by the then leader of the opposition, Prime Minister to-day (Mr. Bennett), and those behind him, when they sat on this side of the chamber, Mr. Speaker, was that we were not bringing in enough immigrants, that our immigration policy was far in the rear of the aggressive Conservative program, when they were in power; that the Liberal government was not sufficiently active in settling the country and increasing the population of Canada.

I recall that when the right hon. Prime Minister was leader of the opposition he launched a particularly vicious attack against the Hon. Mr. Forke, Minister of Immigration. Why? Because the Hon. Mr. Forke, according to him, was remiss in his duty of bringing settlers into this country.

I intend to quote proof of what I say. F.vidently I cannot quote all that our friends said on the subject of immigration, when they sat on the opposition benches. But I shall quote the Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, as also his chief organizer, General McRae, to show that the Coneerva-

The Address-Mr. Boulanger

live party, the Conservative leader, the Conservative chief of organization, and our good friend, since gone to his reward, Dr. Edwards, former member for Frontenac-Addington, were endlessly blaming the Liberal government because its immigration policy was not sufficiently aggressive. And when the hon. gentleman from Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion) claims that this change in attitude was brought about by the Conservative party, once again he is beside the mark. As a matter of fact it was the Liberal party which first began to tell the house that we should begin to cut down on immigration. Without mentioning your humble servant, it was Liberal members, like the hon. gentleman from Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) and others who warned the government when unemployment began to threaten. It was Liberal members who advised the government to slow down and claimed that if they wished to settle the country they should use the surplus population of the older parts of Canada for the colonizing of the newer regions. If we were to help the settlers we should first take care of our own people before giving this help to foreigners.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Charles Napoléon Dorion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DORION:

Will my hon. friend from

Rellechasse allow me a question?

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger

Liberal

Mr. BOULANGER:

With pleasure.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Charles Napoléon Dorion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DORION:

Who passed the order in

council putting a stop to immigration?

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger

Liberal

Mr. BOULANGER:

We have here another one of those political mysteries so frequent in the Conservative party. It is like the mysterious policy of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Air. Weir) who the other day had to admit that what the press has been saying about his policy was not founded on fact; but who could not state just what his policy was. Things were just the same as regards this order in council: nobody ever saw it. People heard of it; but nobody ever saw it, nothing concerning it was ever laid on the table of the house. If there has been a slowing up in the flow of immigrants I don't believe the government or the Conservative party should get the credit; to my mind it is rather a consequence of hard times.

Nevertheless, despite our present depression, in spite of our unemployment crisis and the rigours of the season, we have admitted a monthly average of 5,000 immigrants during the past five months. That means that in the last five months 25,000 immigrants came to Canada, in spite of hard times, unemployment and severe winter weather. Which proves that the famous

order in council that my hon. friend speaks of has at least not put. an immediate stop to immigration.

Coming back to the quotation I mentioned a moment ago, I shall give you first of all the immigration figures under a Conservative government and under the Liberal adminis-tion. I shall make use of the argument that our friends were forever mouthing when they were in opposition. Their hands full of blue books they would exclaim: "Here is the number of immigrants who came to Canada when we were in power. Compare these figures with the absurdly small number of immigrants admitted to the country since the Liberal government has been managing the affairs of the country."

Here are, first of all, the figures for the period between 1912 and 1921. The Conservative party came into power in September, 1911; they left office in December, 1921. In 1912, 254,237 immigrants entered Canada; in 1913, 402,432; in 1914, 384,878; in 1915, 144,789; in 1916-the war was on-48,537; in 1917, 75,374; in 1918, 79,074; in 1919, 57,702; in 1920, 117,336; in 1921-and I ask the house to notice that in 1920 and 1921, when our soldiers were being demobilized and we had to find employment for our returned men, the Conservative party admitted 117,336 immigrants in 1920, and 148,477 in 1921.

Now let us glance at the record of the Liberal government: 1922, 89,999; 1923, 72,887; 1924, 148,560; 1925, 113,362; 1926, 96,064; 1927>

143,991; 1928, 151,597; 1929, 167,722; 1930,

163,288. Those are the figures the then leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) was alluding to when he said: "What are you doing? Compare your results with the brilliant results we obtained when we were in power."

My first quotation is from a speech delivered by the leader of the opposition on April 12, 1927, which will be found in the debates of 1927, volume II, page 2326. On the motion that the house resolve itself into committee- of supply, the member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) drew the attention of the government to the fact that there were

2,000 miners out of work at Drumheller. This is what Mr. Bennett had to say:

I am not going to deal with the question of unemployment. I deprecate greatly the observations that were made in this house this morning by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), because if this country is ever going to make progress we have to get people into it, and the more people we get, the more work there is going to be. It is all nonsense to talk of a close preserve for occupations in this country, and everybody knows it; the idea is absurd. Instead of encouraging that sort of thing, we must frown it down. We are masters of our ....

The Address-Mr. Boulanger

That was in 1927.

In January, 1928, speaking in the debate on tibe speech from the throne the right ben. gentleman who at the time was leading the opposition and is to-day Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Bennett), used the following words in discussing immigration-page 21, vol.

I, of the debates of 1928:

Now, sir, I pass rapidly to the next domestic matter that I think of great importance, and that is immigration. It is true that immigration is by all odds the most important question that can engage the attention of this house or of this parliament. I find that in every part of the Dominion there is a state of unrest in the public mind-suspicion with respect to the manner in which the department is being conducted, suspicion of its administrative power, belief that political considerations have influence in connection with getting permits for the admission of settlers. You will find these things in every newspaper you take up, in the dispatches from its correspondents and in the editorials, and they are discussed in synods and other church meetings. It is high time that something be done to put the power of parliament unitedly behind an effort to bring people over and settle them in this country. We cannot continue as we are and maintain our present position very long. It is essentially important that we should induce more settlers to come to this country. I have pointed out this before, and I . . . .

A little further on, page 22, after quoting the figures I mentioned a while back, he went on to say:

I have already read that part of the speech from the throne delivered in 1927 dealing with this question, and I gave the census figures for 1916 to 1921 and for 1921 to 1926; those figures have been placed on record, and they indicate that although we have sent a few settlers west, many of them have left the country; they entered at the front door and left by the back, and we have not even maintained our natural increase. Further than that, in no one year since 1921 have we brought into Canada half as many people as were brought here in 1913. Those are the facts and the figures.

The year 1913 was the banner year of the Conservative administration. In that year at least 400,000 immigrants entered Canada. The Conservatives never mentioned immigration without bringing in this record year of 1913, and holding it forth to us as a goal, as an accomplishment that we indolent Liberals should strive for.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Charles Napoléon Dorion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DORION:

Would the hon. member from Rellecbasse, who seems to be well acquainted with statistics, be good enough to tell me how many immigrants came to our country from 1896 to 1911 when Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in power?

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink

March 24, 1931