April 12, 1934

LIB

John Vallance

Liberal

Mr. VALLANCE:

Would the minister

enumerate the fairs, and tell us where they are held?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink
CON

Robert Weir (Minister of Agriculture)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WEIR (Melfort):

They are as follows:

New Brunswick:

Woodstock, Fredericton, Chatham.

Quebec:

Quebec regional, St. Hyacinthe.

Ontario:

Leamington, Port Arthur, Lindsay.

Manitoba:

Carman, Dauphin, Portage la Prairie. Saskatchewan:

Lloydminster, Melfort, North Battleford, Prince, Albert, Weyburn, Yorkton, Estevan. Alberta:

Lethbridge, Red Deer, Vegreville, Vermilion, Camrose.

British Columbia:

Chilliwack, Armstrong, Kamloops.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Georges Bouchard

Liberal

Mr. BOUCHARD:

I should like to bring to the attention of the minister an extract from the March 12th issue of the publication L'Action Catholique. My translation is as follows:

One or our readers sent us a copy of the following letter which he received from one of the government services:

"February 25, 1934.

Dear Sir:

We have received your letter of the 13th instant, asking for a French copy of our report.

We regret to inform you that owing to the expense and lack of funds we no longer publish Our report in French.

Yours truly,

Canadian National Live Stock Records.

W. Brant,

Accountant."

Would the minister give an explanation in this matter?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink
CON

Robert Weir (Minister of Agriculture)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WEIR (Melfort):

The Canadian

National Live Stock Records is not part of the federal Department of Agriculture. Originally each breeding association had its own registration. It was felt after some time that by a combination of their efforts they could give a cheaper and better service. With that in mind practically all the breeders have so combined. The Holstein breeders are not included; they continue to operate their own bureau and have their own registration office. The letter to which reference has been made by the hon. member for Kamouraska does not apply to the Department of Agriculture.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink
LIB
CON

Maurice Dupré (Solicitor General of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DUPRE:

May I add a word? If the hon. member would look at a later edition of the same publication he would see therein a letter addressed by Mr. Charles Fremont confirming my colleague's statement, pointing out that the federal government had nothing whatsoever to do with their activities, and stating further that the only reason for not issuing any more French copies was that they had no funds.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Georges Bouchard

Liberal

Mr. BOUCHARD:

I do not find fault with that. But if the Canadian National Live Stock Records Association is receiving an increased grant from the government they may be in a position to have the French copy published. However I have no criticism to offer.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink
CON

Robert Weir (Minister of Agriculture)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WEIR (Melfort):

I should be glad to discuss this matter with the Canadian National Live Stock Records Association. I know that the hon. member who has just spoken is deeply interested in agriculture and has special influence with some of the breeders' associations of the province of Quebec which would benefit from printing the publications in the French language. I should hope that between the two of us, even with their depleted finances, it might be possible to have the copies printed in French, because I heartily agree that the publication would be beneficial to the French farmers who, in recent years, particularly, have shown great interest in the improvement of their live stock.

Progress reported.

Relief Act, 1934

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink

UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 42, respecting relief measures -Mr. Gordon-Mr. Gobeil in the chair.


LIB

William Richard Motherwell

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

I understand that

we are now proceeding with the relief legislation. I suppose it will be a relief to the government when we have finished with it.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Sub-subtopic:   BILL IN TERMS GENERALLY OF RELIEF ACT, 1933, WITH PROVISION RESPECTING DELAYED RELIEF ACCOUNTS
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

No, not at all.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Sub-subtopic:   BILL IN TERMS GENERALLY OF RELIEF ACT, 1933, WITH PROVISION RESPECTING DELAYED RELIEF ACCOUNTS
Permalink
LIB

William Richard Motherwell

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

Well, it will be a

relief to me, and I believe to all of us. I shall not speak very long. As a matter of fact I do not know why we are again in committee on this measure at this time of night.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Sub-subtopic:   BILL IN TERMS GENERALLY OF RELIEF ACT, 1933, WITH PROVISION RESPECTING DELAYED RELIEF ACCOUNTS
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

I shall explain. When this afternoon I moved the house out of committee on the measure, so that we might proceed with supply, I stated, in response to the Speaker's usual question, "When shall the committee sit again?" that it would sit this day. I therefore have moved the house into committee, and unless the committee desires to adopt the amendment I shall move it up again.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Sub-subtopic:   BILL IN TERMS GENERALLY OF RELIEF ACT, 1933, WITH PROVISION RESPECTING DELAYED RELIEF ACCOUNTS
Permalink
LIB

William Richard Motherwell

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

It is a little late in the day, but I suppose we may as well put in full time. At six o'clock I had begun to make some observations. I did not give the right hon. gentleman much chance to reply, but I feel like asking him if he considered my proposals good ones. I do not know whether he listened to them or not.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Sub-subtopic:   BILL IN TERMS GENERALLY OF RELIEF ACT, 1933, WITH PROVISION RESPECTING DELAYED RELIEF ACCOUNTS
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

Oh, yes.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Sub-subtopic:   BILL IN TERMS GENERALLY OF RELIEF ACT, 1933, WITH PROVISION RESPECTING DELAYED RELIEF ACCOUNTS
Permalink
LIB

William Richard Motherwell

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

I could not see for the life of me why he could not give the amount of the line of credit that the government had guaranteed Mr. McFarland in connection with the handling of his wheat activities on the Winnipeg grain exchange. The information will be quite incomplete if that item is left out. We want the total. That is what I am after. I want to be able to say: The government spent $110,000,000 for relief and two or three hundred million, whatever it is, under the same act, under the guise of relief. The excuse for not giving information regarding the guarantee is that it would hurt the price of wheat. Of course I would not want to hurt the price of wheat. It is bad enough now. But what possible effect can disclosing the amount of this guar-

antee have on the price of wheat? What was the line of credit that was given up to the end of the last grain year, the first of August say? Was it the same all through? How much of it was used? I am not wanting to get at the amount of wheat held by Mr. McFarland. That is not the point at all. We pretty nearly know that, and it does not make any difference.

I want to assure the Prime Minister that I have often used this guarantee, in speaking to the people of the west, as an indication that the government was desirous of helping the farmer, although I had some grave doubts as to its advantage, for the simple reason that to the extent it kept up the price and kept our price out of line with competing countries, to that extent we frequently lost sales, because when your price is out of line with competing countries then they will get the sales. In looking for something this government has done I have used that guarantee both out in the west and in this house and said that the government should be given some credit for desiring at least to improve conditions. Why then cannot we be given the amount and extent of this guarantee? Other guarantees have been given by other governments and there has been no hesitation in stating the amounts. Our own government in Saskatchewan as already indicated, guaranteed a line of credit for the co-operative elevators and published the amount freely. From Washington from month to month we got at least the amount of the guarantees that were made a few years ago for a similar purpose. Why should that information be concealed here? I think what I am urging is as much in the interests of the government as of anybody else. As I say, I have used this guarantee as one of the few things which this government has done on behalf of the grain market. Even if it did not affect the price much if any, their intentions were good. Why this concealment? Why this star chamber method of doing business? Why this hole-in-the-corner method in regard to finance?

The government has taken the ground that we should cultivate better ethics in business. The Prime Minister's colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), in discussing the question before the committee on mass buying and in his Toronto speech, took the ground that the chain stores and the mail order houses had departed from what was the proper thing in business ethics. But

Communters Canada-United States

what are we to say of this kind of business ethics, using the credit of the country on behalf of a guarantee for promoting better marketing, and doing it in this clandestine manner? Is that good business ethics? Would it be in anybody else but the government? Would it be good business ethics for a private member of this house not to report candidly in his private business affairs to the shareholders or the people whose money was involved? I plead with the Prime Minister. Jt is not his usual practice to do business in a slithery way like this, and it is not the teaching and preaching of the government. It is not what they are out to inculcate in the minds of the people of Canada through the Stevens committee. They are practically merely saying: Do not do as I do, but do as I say. I want to know if it is out of order to press too hard for this information simply because the matter has been before the banking committee. Actually the matter was settled in the banking committee although that committee has not yet formally reported to the house. It was decided in the committee not to ask for the information, but having the Prime Minister of Canada now before us I plead with him to give us this information I am asking for. It is for himself to decide, but if he does not tell us I am afraid his blood will have to be on his own head; it will not be my fault because I have been asking for the information for several years.

Progress reported.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Sub-subtopic:   BILL IN TERMS GENERALLY OF RELIEF ACT, 1933, WITH PROVISION RESPECTING DELAYED RELIEF ACCOUNTS
Permalink

At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order. Friday, April 13, 1934


April 12, 1934