Mr. MANION:
What condition was that cellar in during the five years o*f the Liberal regime when my hon. friend was sitting behind the cabinet? Why did not my hon. friend have things fixed up during that five years?
Mr. POULIOT:
I am delighted to have this opportunity to give some information to my hon. friend. If he will be good enough to wait until I have finished reading this report, I will give him a full explanation. I asked the former Minister of Railways and Canals, Mr. Dunning, to modify the law in order to put the Canadian government railways, especially the Intercolonial railway, on the same [DOT]footing as the branches of the Canadian National Railway's, that is, under the jurisdiction of the railway board. Previously, they had been under the jurisdiction of the minister and I wanted them put under the jurisdiction of the board. After I have finished reading this report, I desire to show that my hon. friend not only has interfered with the general policy of the Canadian National Railways but is now interfering with the policy of the railway board.
Mr. MANION:
I rise to a point of order; the hon. gentleman makes a statement which is not true. I have not interfered with the policies of the Canadian National Railways.
Mr. POULIOT:
Mr. Speaker, I accept the statement of my hon. friend. The report continues:
Premier etage. L'escalier du premier etage...
While reading his interesting report, Mr. Speaker, I revert to the interjection of the Minister of Railways and Canals who said that he did not interfere with the policy of the Canadian National Railways. In fact,
I admit that it is not he who has refused to sanction the building of the station, and I give him credit for his absence from Ottawa on that date. The other day I asked him: Was the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) appointed Acting Minister of Railways and Canals; and I am glad to see the hon. member here now in good health after he has learned to box the compass on the Atlantic ocean. The Acting Minister of Railways and Canals, the hon. member for Argenteuil, refused to sanction a new station
Russian Coal
at Riviere du Loup; he is responsible for that, and I am very much surprised that the Minister of Railways and Canals did not have him censured for so doing, as the other day he said that the hon. member for Argen-teuil had certainly not been appointed acting minister to refuse to sanction the building of a station at Riviere du Loup. That being said, I continue.
Time.
Mr. POULIOT:
There is no time limit in this case. I wish to show-
Mr. GUTHRIE:
I rise to a point of order. The hon. member has spoken more than forty minutes, and he has not moved any motion.
Mr. SPEAKER:
According to the rules of the house, the hon. member speaking immediately after a minister moving a government order is not limited as to time.
Mr. GUTHRIE:
The hon. member did
not speak immediately after the minister. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) spoke immediately after him.
Mr. SPEAKER:
That being so, then the
hon. member is limited to forty minutes.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):
The leader
of the opposition was merely asking for information; he was not making a speech.
Mr. GUTHRIE:
If he rises to his feet, he is making a speech.
Mr. SPEAKER:
Notwithstanding the fact
that the leader of the opposition may in his remarks have asked for information, he was addressing the house. He might, of course, being leader of the opposition, at any time have continued to speak without limit, that being provided for by the rules; but he having spoken, the hon. member for Temis-couata did not immediately follow the minister, and his forty minutes having expired, I rule that he is not in order in speaking now.
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):
I should like to draw the attention of this house and of the government to some statements made in London by the High Commissioner, the Hon. G. Howard Ferguson, because I think they merit serious notice. As is admitted by practically all hon. members, we have had for the past number of months a serious unemployment problem which has culminated to-day in an appeal at the parliament buildings. I should like to know whether the statement made by the Hon. G.
Howard Ferguson in London to the effect that there was no destitution in Canada, was based on information given to him by the present government.
The other point I should like to draw to the attention of the house is this: when we met at the beginning of the session we were told in the speech from the throne that an embargo had been placed against Russia because her interests were inimical to the social and economic welfare of this country. Mr. G. Howard Ferguson, speaking in London, has, at least according to my way of thinking, quite a different story to tell.
Mr. BELL (Hamilton):
What is the hon. member's authority for that?
Mr. REID:
The magazine Canada, of
London, March 21.
Read it.
Mr. REID:
Referring to the Russian embargo with particular reference to its effect on Russian coal, he pointed out that 3,250,000 tons of anthracite coal were imported from Wales in 1930. I would point out that his figures are inaccurate, because Canada last year imported only 900,000 tons of coal, and I suggest that a copy of the report of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) be sent to him. This is what the High Commissioner said the other day regarding the Russian embargo:
He found that the Russians were invading the market in Canada, so Canada did not hesitate to put an embargo on Russian coal. That action he described as a distinct practical gesture of an imperial character which was of advantage to Britain alone, and he asked the people of the mother country to take it as an instance of the attitude of the Canadian people towards them.
What is wrong with
that?