1922-03-21

PRIVATE BILLS FIRST READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 2, to incorporate British Empire Assurance Company.-Mr. Sinclair (Oxford) .
Bill No. 3, respecting The Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 4, to incorporate Canada's Sons. -Mr. Gordon.
Bill No. 5, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Knox.
Bill No. 6, respecting The Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company.-Mr. Tolmie.
Bill No. 7, respecting The Kettle Valley Railway Company.-Mr. MacKelvie.
Bill No. 8, respecting The Ottawa Gas Company.-Mr. McGiverin.
The Address


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. Me-Murray for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Monday, March 20.
Mr. W. G. RAYMOND (Brantford) (resuming) :: When the House rose last night I was endeavouring to make clear my position and that of the Liberal manufacturers with regard to the tariff. I tried to prove that the tariff, being really a tax, should be administered with equal justice to all and with special privileges to none. I also pointed out that while it is justly claimed that the basic industries of Canada are agriculture, fishing, lumbering and mining, nevertheless they are dependent for their very existence and operation upon certain other industries that provide the tools and implements that enable them to carry on business, and that we must in consequence regard the industries producing these tools and implements as key industries. Now, the importance of key industries to a country was manifested during the late war in the case of Great Britain. It was found, as I said last night, that their system was defective in some respects, in regard to articles that were absolutely necessary to the independent carrying on of the business of the country and the prosecution of the war, such as dyestuffs, chemicals, steel, etc. While we all hope that it is an eventuality that we shall never witness, yet it is within the bounds of possibility, that this country might some day be at war, and, unthinkable though it seems, at war even with our neighbours to the south of us. I trust with all my heart that this will never be the case, but, as I say, it is possible. And in that event, it seems to me, it would be right for those who believe in the development of a Canadian nationality to see to it that it shall be a nationality absolutely self-contained and independent. To the argument that agriculture, fishing, lumbering and mining are basic industries, it is a natural corollary that those who provide the tools and machinery to carry on these businesses are engaged in key industries, and these key industries, in the general interests of the country, should be maintained, not slaughtered. I think that that is the attitude of the Liberal manufacturers, at all events, in this country. They only ask for a fair field and no favour. If we are to have all tariff restrictions

stripped away they will have to stand upon the same basis as any one else; but, Sir, it seems a reasonable contention that until the day comes when this can justly be done, these industries should not be deprived of the benefits of tariff protection while other industries enjoy those benefits. We have been told that such a system is indefensible and could not continue; we have that statement from the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), and it is one in which I concur. Now, the trade question has been discussed for so many years that I do not intend to deal with it at any length to-day. Briefly stated, however, we have two extremely opposite policies before us. One is the policy of high protection, which is not the policy of the Liberal party, who believe in the middle course of a revenue tariff. The other is a policy-only, I believe, a theoretical policy- of free trade. I do not think that free trade is in the field of practical politics. So far as theory goes, it may be absolutely demonstrable, and I would not be prepared to enter into any argument as to whether entire free trade would or would not be better for Canada. I do contend, though, that if we are to have free trade it should be absolutely general and universal. But, as I say, I think it is rather a theory and is not within the realm of practical politics. It is not well, in theories, to get too far from earth; we have to come down to the fact that a great revenue has to be raised at the present time, and we must realize that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is faced with the greatest task that any Minister of Finance of Canada, in the whole history pf the country, has ever had to cope with. He will have to use every avenue of taxation, and I take it for granted that the tariff will be one upon which he will place some dependence. Free trade, therefore, is not in my opinion a practicable policy. There is an old story which is perhaps rather stale, but even so I may be pardoned for repeating it, because it is apropos. Hon. members may remember that Senator Everett asked the question of President Wilson: "How long, Mr. President, do you think a man's legs ought to be?" "Well," replied Mr. Wilson, "Really that is a question, Mr. Senator, to which I have never given much attention; but I presume that they ought to be long enough to reach the ground." I would commend the wisdom of that story to those who argue theoretically upon free trade. We have to come down to the ground; we must face the question of raising the revenues of the

The Address
country, and that is not possible to-day by means of free trade, whatever may be done in the future. Another opportunity will come, I take it, for further discussion upon this subject, if such discussion be necessary, and I shall be able to state the views of my constituents. Representing', as I do, a manufacturing city, I placed before the people my policy with regard to the tariff, and I am proud to say that not only by the manufacturers, but by the rural population of the constituency as well, it was received with approval. That policy, briefly, was this:	That to build up this country
what we want is a tariff policy that will protect raw material and foster production; that when labour is applied to that raw material, through each process, a certain amount of protection should be guaranteed that labour; and so on until we have the finished article, with a reasonable amount of protection incidentally afforded, thus giving at the same time a slight protection to the manufacturer and an assured revenue to the country.
Now, the tariff question is indissolubly connected with another question which is agitating the public mind from one end of Canada to the other, and that is the question of transportation. In my opinion the two are closely linked together. If we wish to find the right solution of the question of transportation and of lowered freight rates and the general success of our railway system, we must not lose sight of the tariff in connection therewith. Transportation has had a great deal to do with the success of every country, and as we look back we find that those countries that neglected transportation have made no progress, while those that gave attention to this important problem have made a name in history and have tended to a great state of development.
From the earliest days as soon as the land was settled on the far eastern border the first anxiety of the settlers was for transportation. They spent immense sums of money and a vast amount of labour on road building, afterwards on railway building-the story is known to us all. They even laid railroads with wooden rails of pine faced with hardwood that they might last longer. And so in spite of great hardships and in spite of the necessity-which was a hard one in those days *-of making a living, they devoted a great deal of time, energy and money to the construction, first of roads, then of railroads, and finally of canals. It was not until 1837 that we had the first locomotive in this country. Time does not permit me
to trace the history of our transportation from that day to this, because it is patent to the minds of us all what took place,- how Canadian energy, ingenuity and perseverance was devoted to the building of railroads and canals. As a result we produced the greatest civil engineers in the world, and accomplished some of the greatest engineering feats that have ever been carried through successfully. I need only quote one that in its early days was considered one of the wonders of the world, though we think nothing of it to-day- the old Welland canal that locked ships up some three hundred and twenty feet. Then came the railroad era and the building of the great Canadian Pacific railway and other roads. I will not take the time of the House in recounting that phase of construction in detail, but we know the undertakings were tremendous, and that it was only by having men of great courage and skill that they were carried through to success. We have those railway systems in the hands of the Government to-day, with the exception of the Canadian Pacific railway. Some ask: Shall we carry these national railways on, or shall we drop them? It seems to me that there can be but one thought upon that question. The hon. member for North Wellington (Mr. . Pritchard) uttered my sentiments when he said that he thought the Canadian people had courage, energy and intelligence enough to undertake the enterprise of running their own railroads. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that they should do so.
We are met with the problem of the proper management of this national railway system, of, if you like, its consolidation or co-ordination, to make it pay and be a practical asset to the country. We have got the roads, we have got the rolling stock. Are we deficient in business management? Is it not possible in this great country to find men who can manage these roads, and manage them successfully? I think if we look back over the accomplishments of Canadians you will agree with me that it is a task that at all events we ought not to flinch from handling until, in the words of the Prime Minister, we have given public ownership a fair trial. A man has been appointed as administrator of our railroads, a man who has the confidence of the country and is known for his shrewd business ability, his firmness, and his personal rectitude, and we have every confidence that he and the other members of the Government will
The Address

tackle this problem in such a way that they will ultimately make our national railway system the success that we all hope it will be. If we look at what has been accomplished by our banking and financial institutions we can have nothing but a feeling of pride in the ability of our countrymen, and if that same ability be applied to the running of our national railroads, I do not see why they should not be made equally successful. That is my feeling now, that we should not flinch from the undertaking of trying to manage these railroads to the best advantage of the country
In their management the old question comes up that has been referred to in this debate-whether our traffic should run east and west, or north and south. The late Professor Goldwin Smith was quoted as having said that he thought it should run north and south. Now, if he were quoted upon a question of history, of Greek philosophy, or any other scholastic subject, I would listen with the greatest respect to his opinion. But this is a matter of practical politics. I do not know of anything in Professor Goldwin Smith's life that should make us pay regard to his opinion on the subject of transportation. When we remember that the first settlement commenced on the banks of the St. Lawrence and flowed east and west, and that afterwards when the railroads were built they were built along the same lines, until to-day we have them running from the Atlantic to the Pacific, there is not much use in talking of our railroad traffic running north and south.
But I take it, in this connection-and this is where I think the tariff and the railroad question interlock and should be considered together-that there are many cases where with a reasonable tariff imposed upon certain goods that would otherwise be imported from the United States, the carriage of those goods would bring traffic to our railroads, and the tariff in that sense would help our national railroads, and of course the more freight traffic they carry the cheaper the basis upon which they will be able to make their rates. We all know that if it were possible to-day to reduce freight rates to a minimum, many of the difficulties of the farmers in the West would be entirely removed. I for one have confidence that the Government will undertake the solution of our railway problem with that good old-fashioned courage for which Canadians are noted. I do not think we have a government of flinchers; I think

they are going to undertake this problem in such a way as we have seen Canadians undertake other problems. Surely, we will never forget some of the difficulties that our soldiers overcame. When they had to take a position that was considered impregnable, that was manned by a foe who was considered, and had counted himself, invincible, and when the capture of that position had been once attempted and the attempt had failed, and the task was finally given to our soldiers, they made no rash rush to capture their objective within the first few days, but for weeks and months they studied the situation and planned and perfected every detail of the attack, rehearsed every operation behind the lines, and when the time came-I think it was the 9th of April -they advanced and took that Vimy Ridge whose name is now emblazoned upon the escutcheon of our country. We want the same kind of co-ordination of effort that achieved that success, and I believe we shall get it from the Government. We have not had any intimation of what they are going to do, and that is all the better. There was no intimation of what General Byng was going to do, but when the attack came it was absolutely successful. I look forward in the confident hope that when the Government lays its railroad policy before the country it will sweep forward to success with the certainty with which our gallant boys swept forward when they took Vimy Ridge.
I listened with delight and attention to the very eloquent address delivered by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens). It was refreshing and interesting, and with many of the points that he made I felt that I could agree. I did not like, however, his' reference to the hon. Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin). He said that that gentleman was a director of the Bank of Montreal and of the Royal Trust Company, and had been a director of the Cockshutt Plough Company and others too numerous to mention. Now, if that had been stated in the obituary of a prominent Canadian it would have been counted to his credit and looked upon as indicating that he had the confidence of his fellow citizens to that degree. Why, then, should it be to a man's discredit that these things should be mentioned while he is still alive? The reference to this party as the party of the big interests is, as I endeavoured to show last evening, a mistaken one. But it would equally be a mistake to assume that there is no room

The Address
within the Liberal party for all the interests of Canada-the banking interests, the manufacturing interests, the farming interests, the labour interests. What the Liberals object to is the use by the government of powers granted to them by the people in such a way as to confer unfair privilege or bring unfair profit to any interest, big or little. When that happens, then we feel that both the government and the interest concerned are at fault. But I say there is nothing in the principles of the Liberal party to prevent its having the allegiance of any part of the people of Canada. Let me make my position clear in this respect:	I am now referring to
occasions where the government uses its power to favour certain interests. For instance, it may occur if a government issues hundreds of millions of Victory Bonds exempt from taxation for the benefit of plutocrats, or if the government accept from certain wealthy companies promissory notes for taxes-these are matters which could be explained in detail by the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton). Clearly, such acts would be bending to the great interests. But any man who occupies a high and responsible commercial position can see that the true interest of his business is with the Liberal party, because that party has not picked out men because of their race or because of their creed. It makes no difference what town or city or province a man comes from. If he is a true Canadian; if he loves his country and has its interests at heart; if he endorses the principle so well laid down by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and ably seconded by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar)

equal justice to all and unfair privileges to none-I say that man can be a Liberal.* But in the end, Mr. Speaker, the basis upon which any of us will be judged will not be race or blood or creed; it will be the principles that we hold in our hearts and which make up our personality, the personality of our political party and of the country of which we are citizens.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River) :: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to join those other speakers who have congratulated you upon your elevation to the position of first commoner of the land. Knowing you as I do; knowing your broad culture, your wide parliamentary experience, your knowledge of history and of the traditions of this Parliament, and your general desire for fair play, I feel quite sure
that you will fill that position with credit to yourself, to your party, and to the House of Commons.
Then, Sir, I should like also, in a word, -for I am the first returned man who has spoken in this debate, so far as I know-to welcome to this country, the new Governor General. I had the honour of first knowing Lord Byng in France, and my last remembrance of him was at a review of my battalion some time in August, 1917, behind the lines. I can only express the hope-and I am sure it will be fulfilled- that he will as Governor General of Canada live up to the high standard which he attained as the leader of the troops in France, and that he will gain the affection of the whole of the Canadian people to the same extent as he gained the affection of the Canadian troops overseas.
I listened, Mr. Speaker, with a good deal of interest to previous speakers, particularly, for an hour and a half last evening and to-day, to the address of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond). So far as the charge that was made against him was concerned, that he had taken a stand for higher protection in Brantford, Talleyrand's expression that "Language is given us to conceal our thoughts" might well be used. He went round and round that charge and over and under it; he went through it in various directions, but he did not deny it. Perhaps it is only right and honest on his part that he should not deny it, because I hold in my hand some of the statements which he made during the election. They are too long to read in full, but if I quote a couple of paragraphs it may bring back to the minds of hon. gentlemen to my left the almost passionate appeals he made to them to believe that he was nearly a free trader. One of the statements signed by him and made to the electors of Brantford was as follows:
The thousands of unemployed workmen in Brantford at the present time must realize that their unhappy condition is owing to the action of the Government, which reduced the duty on agricultural implements, and maintained free trade in binder-twine, cream separators and tractors.
That is signed "W. G. Raymond,"-the hon. member who has just taken his seat. But here is another statement which he made a little later in the election, I presume, published in a newspaper, with his picture, and addressed to the electors of the riding of Brantford. I shall read just two paragraphs of it. The heading is "Brantford's Interests Sacrificed," and it reads:
The Address

The fact is, this average reduction from 26 per cent to 21 per cent, claimed as such an advantage by Mr. Meighen, has been made at the expense of Brantford's industries. For instance, the duty on agricultural implements, binders, etc., etc., was reduced by the present Government from 17J to 121 per cent. Was this done in the interests of Brantford workingmen? Tractors were made free ; cream separators and binder twine also kept on the free list. Millions of dollars were sent to the United States for the purchase of these articles, every dollar of which that was paid for labour might otherwise have been spent in Brantford, and every dollar that was spent in the United States for these articles helped to swell the balance of trade against us.
A little further on he says:
A revenue tariff-[DOT]
By the way, that expression "revenue tariff" is rather amusing. There is only one kind of revenue tariff I know of, that is, a tariff which is put upon goods that are non-competing in a country-and I think my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) will agree with me-or put upon goods that are competing, but with corresponding excise duties upon similar goods made in that country.


Mr. CRERAR:: I do not wish my hon. friend to be under any delusion. I do not agree with him in that respect.


Robert James Manion: I should be very glad to give my hon. friend a chance to explain what be does mean by "revenue tariff." Evidently he does not wish to do so. My hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) does not agree with that. Now suppose you put a tax, say a tax of five per cent, on goods earning into this country and competing with goods made here, and you do not put on a corresponding tax on the goods made within this country, is not that a protective tariff? I should be glad to have my hon. friend from Marquette answer that question. Certainly it is a protective tariff, to the extent of five per cent; and if the tax were ten per cent it would be a protective tariff to the extent of ten per cent. So I think we should have terms that really mean what they say. I think most economic authorities agree that a revenue tariff is a tariff that is not protective to any degree. Let me now give the quotation from the member for Brantford:
A revenue tariff judiciously applied would have been the means of keeping trade in Canada and bringing work to our Brantford factories. Mr. Meighen wanted to give a sop to the Agrarian free traders of the West so he sacrificed Brantford's interests.
Then he goes on:
Brantford was made the goat and has to suffer in order that Premier Meighen may boast
[Mr. Manlon.l
as he did in the armories on the night of October 24, that he has reduced the Fielding Tariff from an average of 26 per cent to an average of 21 per cent. Surely this is protection that does not protect.
I think that anybody who listens to these words-and they are signed by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Raymond)-must realize that that hon. gentleman is rather a peculiar type of free trader. I remember well, and most of my hon. friends on the other side will remember likewise, that the gentleman who preceded him in this House, Mr. Cockshutt, used to be termed-I remember using the term once myself-the high priest of protection, and the only reason my hon. friend g'ot elected in the place of Mr. Cockshutt was that he out-high priested the high priest. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Brantford-I have no quarrel with his attitude; in fact, we would welcome him over here only that he is too high a protectionist for this party-is only an instance of the many different tariff policies which are held on that side of the House. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin), who unfortunately is not in his seat, is at least a moderate protectionist, if not a high protectionist. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), who also is not in his seat, is a moderate protectionist, as I am a moderate protectionist. My hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster), who I also regret is not in his seat, is a free trader, as is also my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon). I warn my hon. friends to my left that if they search through the whole party sitting opposite they cannot discover there any other free traders than the hon. member for Brome and the hon. member for Gloucester.	-
* Mr. CRERAR: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell).


Robert James Manion: There may be some exceptions, but they must be new members of the House. They were not here in the last parliament. The Minister of Justice stated the other day-and I have no quarrel with him either on this question-that he had stood for the last twenty-five years on the Laurier-Fielding tariff policy. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is where I stand, and that is where my leader stood in the last election. The Laurier-Fielding tariff, so far as I am aware, and I have given some study to the question, is exactly the same tariff policy that Sir John A. Macdonald introduced in 1878, except for slight modifications in detail. It is exactly the same tariff policy

The Address
that we carried on, with slight differences in detail-differences that made a change to the extent of about five per cent in lowering the tariff. The only way the Minister of Justice can get back to the Laurier-Pielding tariff is to raise the present tariff, revise it upwards, as my hon. friend from Marquette suggested might be in their minds, to the extent of five per cent. That is the only way he can get back to the Laurier-Fielding tariff, and particularly as the lteader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) has just suggested to me, in the matter of farm implements.
One hon. gentleman on this side of the House last night asked the hon. member for Brantford regarding the history of the binder twine industry. I happen to have the history of that industry, and as my hon. friend from Brantford did not give it, I am going to give it to the House now. Previous to 1898 we had twenty-five plants in this country manufacturing binder twine, and there was a tariff of from ten to twelve-and-a-half per cent on binder twine imported into this country. In 1898 binder twine was put upon the free list, and what happened to those twenty-five industries? Twelve of them went into liquidation, seven quit business, three were burnt down and were not rebuilt, and three remained, of which one is the plant in the town of Brantford. The binder twine industry was used during the last election as a proof of the fact that we may have free trade in this country or anywhere else without injuring the industrial life of the country. Well, if you wipe out only twenty-two out of twenty-five plants, I venture to say you are doing some slight injury to that industry at any rate.
I do not intend to spend very much time on post mortems of either speeches or elections, but I do think that sometimes it is wise to remind our opponents particularly of the sins they have committed in order to prevent them falling into the ways of sin on some future occasion. During the last election not only were different tariff stands taken by different members of the party opposite, from the hon. member for Brantford to the hon. member for Brome, but various stands were also taken by the leaders of the party opposite. I shall not deal with that because I think the people know it very well.
Then there were charges such as this. In the city of Port Arthur in a speech made by the present Prime Minister-and may I at this stage in my first reference to him express my very sincere sympathy
in the sad affliction which takes him from the House at this time-he said that the leader of the Opposition was committing the horrible crime of appointing friends to the Senate. Well, since the election of the Prime Minister, I have not noticed that he has appointed any member of this party, or even of the Agrarian group to the Senate.
Then there was the charge of usurpation. I am only touching on these charges; I am not going to deal with them at any length. But there is this to remember: There may be room for dispute as to whether we should have gone to the country sooner than we did, but I hold under my hand the manifesto of Sir Robert Borden in 1917. In that manifesto there are twelve planks, and not one of them mentioned in any way that the Government would be only for the war or that there would be an election immediately afterwards, Only two of those planks deal with the war at all.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was promised on the hustings.


Robert James Manion: It may have been promised on the hustings. My hon. friend the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) has stated that he promised it on the hustings but it was not stated in my constituency, and I venture to say it was not stated in ninety-five per cent of the constituencies of this country. But laying that aside, the charge of usurpation is based upon the fact that when Sir Robert Borden stepped out, my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) was elected by his followers to the premiership. Now, there sits opposite to me to the left of the Prime Minister the Minister of Justice. That hon. gentleman was the Premier of the province of Quebec for many years, and a good premier, I admit. When he retired from the premiership of that province his followers met and appointed Mr. Taschereau to take his place, just as we met and appointed the present leader of the Opposition to take the place of Sir Robert Borden. Again, in the province of Ontario, Mr. Drury was not even elected in the general elections. He was pulled in afterwards. A seat was found for him, and he was chosen by his followers to be the leader of the Farmer group in that province. Would you mind telling me, Mr. Speaker, when it became a virtue for the Liberals of the province of Quebec and the Farmers of Ontario to perform an act, and a crime for this party to perform the same act?
Then there is the old charge of loss of representative government. The only
The Address

reason I touch upon these charges at all is not that I believe they are worth mentioning, but because they have been brought up and reiterated by a number of hon. gentlemen opposite. In this country we have never had, so far as I know, anything else but representative government. Representative government simply means that the representatives of the people meet in Parliament and carry on the government of the people. That being so, we have never had anything but responsible government in this country, so far as I know, since Confederation; because if the Government had not been backed by the Parliament of Canada it could not have carried on. The Government of Canada was responsible to the Parliament of Canada and the Parliament to the people. In other words we have never had anything else but representative and responsible Government in this country.
May I touch on one other point in the speech of the hon. gentleman who leads the Government at the present time. In that speech he belittled my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) for what he did at the Prime Ministers' Conference in London. I am going to read to the House one small paragraph from the Manchester Guardian, the most outstanding Liberal organ in the British Empire-certainly in the British Isles-as to the stand of my right hon. friend in London. This is what that great newspaper said of my right hon. friend:
Premier Meighen has made to the important but insular counsels of Britain at the crucial moment a detached, dispassionate contribution that the history of the world will note as helpful to peace and understanding. He has gone back to face a domestic situation which takes no account of -the way he has spoken for his country in the momentous world questions dealt with by the Imperial Conference.
This is a familiar experience to all statesmen, but it is a fate which statesmen a hundred years hence, even across the Atlantic, will not suffer for.
I can only hope sincerely that when the present leader of the Government goes, if he does go, to represent this Government and the people of Canada in England, the Liberal Manchester Guardian will speak in as high terms of him as it spoke of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition.
After all the abuse that was heaped upon the late government during the elections-in such speeches, for example, as my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) delivered the other day-what has the new Government done to show that the old gov-

ernment was in the wrong, or was carrying on wrongly? I do not know, Sir, of anything found to be wrong. I do not know of one change of policy made by this Government. Take for example the subjects of labour and unemployment. I notice by the press that the present Minister of Labour is most generous and free in giving advice to the labour people all over Canada. I hardly take up a paper nowadays that I do not find from it that he has sent some telegram giving quite strong advice to the Labour Unions as to how they should act; but I do not find that he has changed the policy of Senator Robertson, the late Minister of Labour, so far as unemployment is concerned, and it is worth pointing out a fact of that kind. In fact the policy that has been carried on by the present Government, so far as unemployment is concerned, is exactly the policy which was initiated by Senator Robertson and the government which preceded the present Administration.
Now, Sir, I wish to say just this-that I am not ashamed, so far as I am concerned of the stand which I took in the recent election in support of the leader of the Opposition. It has been stated-sometimes in the House, sometimes out of it-that we were ashamed of the record of the late government. Sir, I have nothing to be ashamed of in having supported that government from 1917 to 1921. I shall barely name without discussing them, a few things which I consider are to the credit of the government applicable to the period between 1917 and 1921.
In the first place, there was the carrying on of the war, so far as the Government of Canada could carry on war. I do not need to discuss it; the result of the war, so far as Canada is concerned, proves that the Government of the Dominion did their part as the people of Canada and the boys from Canada did theirs.
Then, in regard to the re-establishment of the soldiers after the war; the fact that $458,000,000 was spent upon the re-establishment of our soldiers before the recent election, and that that figure is one and one-half times the amount of the whole national debt of Canada before the war-the expenditure of that vast amount of money for the purpose proves, and investigation proves it also, that the Government and the people of Canada treated the returned soldiers of this country and their dependents better than any other country in the world treated their returned soldiers and their dependents in this war or in any other war.

The Address
I do not wish to be misunderstood as saying that everything has been done that should have been done. I do not wish to be misunderstood as saying there is nothing more to do; there is much to do. Some mistakes have happened, some things have been left undone; but I repeat, Sir, that the treatment of our returned soldiers and their dependents by the Government of Canada between 1917 and 1921 was unsurpassed in the history of the world.
Then there was the wiping out of patronage. I remember that on our own side of the House that did not always meet with approval; and I understand the question of patronage is meeting with a great deal of discussion on the other side of the House at the present time.
Then there was the giving of the vote to women. And finally there was the financial position of the country after the war was over. The financial position of Canada at the end of the war was better than the financial position of any country in the world, with the possible exception of the United States to the south of us that went into the war three years after we did. I made it my business this morning to look up the national debt of the United States and I found it was twenty-five billions of dollars, with ours at a little over two billions of dollars. You will find therefore that the national debt per capita of the United States is about $225 and our national debt per capita is $250. Then, if you recall that the United States went into the contest three years later than we did, you will realize that the financial position of Canada was a very good one compared with that of the United States.
Then, Sir, during those four years no charge of graft was ever made against any Minister of the Government that held office between 1917 and 1921, although hundreds of millions of dollars of money were handled by those ministers.
These are only a few of the outstanding thing's that I mention from a large number that might be enumerated, but I do not wish to take up the time of Parliament. I wish to say this to the House:	Because
a party has been defeated, and badly defeated as we have been-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: I am glad I am saying
something which meets with the approval of hon. gentlemen opposite. Because a party meets with defeat, that does not prove that the Government which represented it was a bad government; it proves that the people
wanted a change and they got it. They will probably realize that a little later on. But, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote just one sentence to prove that argument. In the life of that great statesman Sir Wilfrid Laurier by Professor Skelton, which I had the very great pleasure of reading the other day-because we on this side of the House have probably as much admiration for Sir Wilfrid Laurier as my hon. friends opposite-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: Some of us have at any
rate. In his Life of Sir Wilfrid Laurier Professor Skelton speaks of the defeat of the Liberal party in 1878, when Alexander Mackenzie had been Prime Minister for the Liberals, and he quotes that statesman as saying:
The recent verdict has shaken my confidence in the general soundness of public opinion, and has given cause to fear that an upright administration of public affairs will not be appreciated by the masses of the people.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the leader of the Opposition might very well use the same words at the present time. I should also like to point out this: That the party of the hon. gentleman who leads the Government should hesitate to be too boastful about the victory they have won, because, while I admit we received a very severe defeat, I submit that the Liberal party won one of the most anaemic victories that party has ever won. For, if you look down the two sides of this House at the present time you will find that there are practically as many members in the two parties now occupying this side of the House as there are in the Liberal party. So I think my hon. friends opposite should go rather softly when they speak of their success in the last election.
My hon. friend (Mr. Crerar) made a speech the other day which I listened to with a great deal of pleasure. He delivered a very constructive speech and I think a very fine one. Of course there are some conclusions he reaches with which we in this corner of the House do not agree, and with which my hon. friends opposite apparently do not agree, either. One or two of them I wish to refer to later, but there is one that I shall take up now. My hon. friend in that speech made some references to immigration. He pointed out that the solving of the problems of this country required a very good immigration policy and said that we required the right type of immigrants, people who wculd
The Address

settle on the land. With this sentiment I absolutely agree. But my hon. friend attributed the fact that during the last ten years there has been such an exodus from this country to the United States to the protective policy which prevailed in this country. In blaming the protective policy for that exodus I do not agree with him. I am quite sure that many hon. gentlemen opposite will not agree with him, and I am going, in order to show the difference of opinion which prevails, to quote a gentleman who stood very high in the ranks of the Liberal party for many years as an authority on immigration, Sir Clifford Sifton. While we may disagree with Sir Clifford Sifton in many things-some of us; all of us, perhaps-at the same time I do not think that anybody would dispute that he is an authority on the question of immigration to Canada. I am now going to quote from a report in the Toronto Globe of March 2nd, of a speech made by him. The Globe comments thus:
Sir Clifford is the best posted man in Canada to-day on the question of immigration.
Now as to what Sir Clifford himself says:
Reviewing what had been done in the past, Sir Clifford stated that there had been much publicity given to the statement that Canada had lost 1,800,000 immigrants during the past ten years. For this loss various causes were ascribed. Some people had blamed Mr. Meighen, some had blamed the Conservative Government, and others placed the onus on the working of the tariff. Despite all these alleged reasons, the speaker declared, it was his firm conviction these people would have been lost to Canada whatever Government had been in power, and tariff or no tariff. The cause of the exodus from Canada was an inevitable drift to the south of that class of immigrant who could not "make good" in Canada, and who sought a "sunnier clime and a warmer sky", and of old people who could not stand the rigors of a Canadian winter. Of the great majority of this 1,800,000 whom the Dominion had lost during the last decade, Canada, Sir Clifford believed, was well rid of them. It was not by the method of shovelling millions of people into Canada, irrespective of their fitness for settlement on the land, that the question of immigration would be solved.
Then, Sir, the matter of climate is also, I think, very important in regard to the fact that immigrants leave this country, and also in regard to the fact that many people who leave their native lands to go to new countries do not come to Canada. There is another reason besides climate which has always struck me-for, like other men in this House, I have given the question some thought at different times and have wondered why it is that the United States has been built up so much

more rapidly than Canada. That other reason is this: Most of the people who come to this country come from monarchical countries. They come from countries where not only is there monarchical rule-a rule more or less autocratic-but from countries where the militaristic system is very highly developed; and when they leave those countries they make up their minds to go to some country where there is no monarchical rule and where the militaristic system is not in existence. Immigrants being as a rule uneducated people-because well-to-do and educated people do not leave their native land-they have decided that Canada, being part of the monarchy of Great Britain is probably autocratic in government and militaristic. Of course it is not so, but they do not know that; and to my mind a great many people W'ho go to the United States go there because they feel they are going to a Republican country, going to a country which believes that all men are born free and equal, and therefore they think they will have a better chance of succeeding. As a matter of fact it has been admitted, I think, by all students of the question that the democracy in our country is at least as high, if not higher, than the democracy in the United States, but the people in Europe do not know that.
Now, Sir, I am going to touch upon a few of the problems which confront us. I do not know that the Speech from the Throne mentioned the debt of this country, but it is a fact that one of the problems of Canada at the present time is the large national debt which we have. The debt is so immense that it is weighing heavily upon the people. True, the debt in England is three times as large per capita as is ours, but at the same time we have a very heavy debt in Canada. Then there is the railway problem, I link these two up for a purpose. The railway problem is due to the fact that in this country railways have been overbuilt. There has been a great deal of discussion on all sides as to which political party was the cause of the over building. Well, Sir, if you will look back at the history of the railways you will discover a few facts that stand prominently out. For example, in 1903 we had but one transcontinental railway in this country, and that was the Canadian Pacific, But Charles M. Hays pro-
4 p.m. posed to Sir Wilfrid Laurier that we should have a second

The Address
2G9
one, at least that we should have the Grand Trunk Pacific-and, after politics probably-had intervened to a certain extent, that proposition was changed to a National Transcontinental and a Grand Trunk Pacific. If the proposition had stopped there, and we had had two transcontinental railways, the National Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the Canadian Pacific, then probably we would not have had a problem such as we have to-day. But that proposition was gone on with, with the consent of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his party, and with the consent of Charles M. Hays. Unfortunately, however, in 1911, before the Laurier party went out of power, they passed legislation in this House guaranteeing $35,000,000 to Mackenzie and Mann to extend their lines from Port Arthur to Montreal. That made a third transcontinental. The Conservative party, no doubt, have made some mistakes in handling railway problems, as some others in this country have made mistakes, but I think my hon. friends on the other side of the House, in view of those two historical facts which cannot be denied, should hesitate to attribute to the Conservative party the large part of the blame for the railway growth which we have in this country. The hon. member for Pietou (Mr. Macdonald), referring to this question, said that there were no railway experts on this side of the House. He forgot to mention there were none on the other side either, hut did not forget to tell us there were none on our side. I would like to point out to him that the one man who was largely responsible for the railway muddle in this country was Charles M. Hays, at that time, I think, the chairman of the board of directors of the Grand Trunk Railway, who was looked upon as a real authority in railway matters of this country. He was one of the experts called in and he permitted the muddle to take place. This shows that experts do not always cure diseases, or prevent diseases from occurring.
There is only one cure, to my mind, for these two problems, the financial problem of this country and the railway problem, and that cure is the immigration of people into this country, the immigration of the proper type of settler and the building up of population on the right basis. If you can bring in the right kind of settler, men who will settle on the land and will thus develop the natural resources of the country, it will help to solve this problem. It
might be worth remembering that in 1914, before the war began, up to March 31st, 402,000 immigrants came into this country. During the war immigration went down to 48,000 for one year. But, at any rate, the immigration to this country is again picking up. Last year, 148,000 people came in, so that it is again on the up-grade, and if we can improve the immigration and increase the population of this country, we will have adopted the only means of solving the immense problem of finance and the railway muddle in which this country finds itself at the present time.
There is another question which was not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, and that is the question of the further development of the natural resources of this country. On different occasions in this House I have taken up time speaking on that question, pointing out the great natural resources of Canada in a more or less undeveloped state, in coal, iron, fisheries, pulpwood, timber and water powers, and have shown the possibilities of a greater development than has taken place in the past. I remember that last year, after I had spoken, my hon. friend, the leader of the present Government, said that he considered that was one of the most important questions to be dealt with by any Government in this country. To my mind he will get the applause and the gratitude of the people if he and his party can work out some scheme whereby a greater development of the natural resources will take place.
There was another question which was not referred to in the Speech from the Throne, but was mentioned by some of the speakers who have addressed the House. That was the question of the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes canal system. I know it will not be dealt with at this session, at least I do not expect that it will be dealt with, but it is an important question. Julius Barnes, of the United States Wheat Board, who is considered the best authority on the wheat question in the United States, and one of the best authorities in the world, said the building of that canal would save the farmers of the Western States and Western Canada anywhere from five to ten cents on every bushel of grain produced in the Northwest of Canada, and in the western part of United States. If that were true, if it saved five cents even, on the 300,000,000 bushel crop in the country, it would mean a saving to the farmers of Western Canada of $15,000,000 per annum. Sir, by the building of that canal,
The Address

if it is decided after a thorough investigation that it is wise to go on with it- and I think it will be so decided-we will make our Great Lakes the Mediterranean of this country, because it is worth remembering that through the Soo canal four times as much freight passes as goes through the Suez canal. Then there is the immense amount of electrical energy which may be developed, amounting to some four million horse power, which would be developed if the canal were constructed. I shall not go into the question further than to mention it and commend it to the Government for proper consideration and study.	.
Then, Sir, comes a question which is usually dodged in Parliament but which, unfortunately, is not so often sidetracked on the hustings, and that is the problem presented by the differences of race and creed in this country. It is looked upon by some people as a problem that causes a great deal of trouble in Canada. It does, and, until there is a spirit of tolerance, it will continue to do so. There are in this country perhaps 40 per cent of the population who are Catholics, while the rest are Protestants, and there are some two and a half or three million people who speak the French language. These facts are seized upon by some people who desire to make capital out of them to serve their own purposes. If you look across the ocean to the little country of Switzerland you will find that there they speak three languages and subscribe to two religions. In the south they speak Italian, in the north German, and in the west French, and yet with three official languages and two religions that country was described by the late lamented Viscount Bryce, in that wonderful work, written by him shortly before his death, "Modern Democracies," as the highest form of democracy in the world today. So that the fact that there are spoken three languages and practised two religions in Switzerland does not occasion them any particular trouble; and if we look at the matter in the right light there is no reason on earth why there should be any difficulty because of our differences of religion and language in Canada. We have two official languages and Switzerland has three, all equally official; and if there is no trouble in that country there ought to be none here. Unfortunately, however, there are extremists in Canada. I am glad to say that from the Lakes west, extremists are rare, but unhappily in some of the provinces there are such people on both sides of this ques-

tion, men who make it their business to set in antagonism the French-speaking and the English-speaking people. Unfortunately, also, I regret to say that an attempt has been made by some hon. members on the other side-very few, I am glad to add,- to label my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) as a hater and enemy of the province of Quebec. I regret to say it in his absence, but I fear that in the speech of even the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) the other day, there was some suggestion of this very idea. I had hoped that the hon. gentleman would be in the House, because I fully intended making the statement I now make and I had hoped that he would refute it and declare that he had not wished to have his language so construed. Sir, bigotry is one of the meanest qualities which any man can possess. Oliver Wendell Holmes once truly said that the mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye: the more light you throw upon it the more it contracts. Well, bigotry is at the bottom of some of the attempts that are made to label my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) as a hater and an antagonist of the province of Quebec; but politics is at the bottom of a good deal more of it. No word has been traced to the right hon. gentleman by which he has shown himself an enemy of that province, and I consider the unjust attempt to sully his reputation in this regard as a despicable type of political warfare. Mr. Speaker, no one in the House who knows me will accuse me of being in any way an enemy of the province of Quebec and its people. I know their many good qualities and I admire them, and I trust I may be forgiven a personal reference to myself for a moment in view of this fact. I am a Roman Catholic of Irish extraction; my wife is a Roman Catholic of French extraction; and my three little boys all speak the beautiful language of Corneille and Racine with as much facility and ease as they speak English, and I am proud of the fact,-a fact that is due to their mother. Notwithstanding these personal facts, however, I may say that I represent in this House a constituency which is seventy-five to eighty per cent Protestant, among whom are a very great many Orangemen. There are in that constituency twenty or twenty-five per cent of Catholic people as against the percentage of Protestants I have mentioned. If it had not been for the broad-minded tolerance on the part of the people whom I represent I could not be returned to this Parliament, and I think that this splendid

The Address
example of tolerance and broad-mindedness should be a lesson to the whole country. I sincerely hope, therefore, without going further into the question, that in future no hon. gentlemen, either in this House or out of it, unless they can substantiate the charge-and I know they cannot-will accuse my hon. leader of enmity to the province of Quebec. If my right hon. friend were an enemy to that province-for that matter, if he were an enemy to any great section of the country,-I would not follow him for fifteen minutes, because I do not think that any man who harbours an aversion for any great section of the people could be worthy of being the leader of a great party in this country.
Now, Sir, I am going to touch upon another question before concluding my remarks, a question that was referred to in the Speech from the Throne; I refer to the matter of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. Some remarks were made in a general way in the Speech, and I have no criticism to make of them; it was stated that the plans would be carried on as they had been in the past and would be amplified wherever possible. That, at any rate, was the effect of the statement. Well, I believe that there are a few things in connection with this matter that can be improved upon by this Parliament. For example, there are questions in relation to pensions which can be improved upon in favour of the returned soldier and his dependents. I have in my office at the present moment a letter from a widow in England who used to live in Port Arthur. She knew my name and wrote me in regard to this matter. She was receiving a pension on account of the death of her only son at the front, but it was discovered that she owned two or three little cottages from which she received rent, and because of this fact her pension was cut off. She claims that the cottages a great part of the time have not been rented. I have had the question investigated by the Pensions Commission-and I may say that I am not criticising them, because they are acting in accordance with the regulations laid down for them. They report that they cannot see that she is entitled to the pension. I presume they are right, according to the rules, but I suggest that a case like this, and many others akin to it, should be dealt with rather in a spirit of sympathy and charity than acording to the strict letter of the law; and if the rules are such as to bear with unreasonable severity on people they should be changed by the
House. The object should be to do justice by every mother who gave her son in the cause of liberty. Then there is another class of people who think that -they have not been receiving justice. Fortunately they are only a few, but I know of one case particularly:	Suppose a man wished to
get out of the army, suppose he was exceedingly anxious to get out, and signed a declaration that he was a hundred per cent, fit. And now, perhaps two or three years afterwards, he comes forward and says that he had some disease while in the army, tuberculosis, perhaps, or asthma, or some other ailment which might have -been chronic. But his signed declaration that at the time of his leaving the army he was one hundred per cent fit now bars him from a pension except under very exceptional circumstances. I think that this is another rule that might be modified so as to afford a little more leeway to the Pension Commissioners in order that they may give a chance to su!ch a man. Then there is the matter of housing for returned soldiers. The committee on returned soldiers last year put in a report on this question, in which there appeared this paragraph:
After many and lengthy discussions, your Committee agrees that the Government would be well advised to consider favourably an extension of its original project for the purpose of erecting houses for ex-service men.
I know very well many cases to-day where if that plan could be worked out without too great a cost it would be a substantial blessing to the returned man. Because, Sir, I submit that no man went to the front and served there for any length of time- and I make no exception to this statement-who has not suffered financially and probably physically by his service in the ranks. Practically every man who went over there made financial sacrifices; most of them made physical sacrifices as I know from my own medical and personal experience. No man came back from the front after having served in the lines under all the horrors of war without being lessened in his physical capacity. There is too much inclination-and I say this without meaning to cause any ill-feeling-on the part of many who did not serve overseas to forget the services of these boys to whom we promised everything we owned in the world if they would fight for our freedom at the front. Therefore I think if by some legislation we can stretch the statute enacted a year or two ago to give returned men an opportunity . to build
The Address

houses for themselves we will be doing only justice to them.
I was struck by the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer, (Mr. Speakman) who succeeded that brilliant orator, Dr. Michael Clark, who was an ornament to this House. The hon. member pointed out that owing to the deflation in the values of land and farm products returned soldiers who took up land have to-day lost much of the possibility of success; and, if I remember rightly, he proposed that one-third be taken off the original value of the land secured by them through the Soldiers Settlement Board.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I made no proposal of any specific figure, but I did support the definite principle of re-valuation to bring land values in line with present values.


Robert James Manion: That is what I referred to, and I think I quoted my hon. friend correctly. I think the suggestion is very reasonable if the facts are as stated by him, and I have no doubt that he has examined them. I know that in my own sc; [DOT] tion of the country, where many men wea.c overseas, a number of them who later took up land are in dire straits. That is a matter, I think, which will have to be dealt with by this Parliament, and probably during this session.
Now, Sir, I am going to deal briefly with the tariff question before I conclude my remarks. I do not intend to deal at any great length with some of the statements made by hon. members because, after all, the debate on the Budget is the proper time to deal with the tariff exhaustively. Unfortunately, in tariff matters as in matters of race and creed, there are extremists. There are those who believe in a high customs tariff, like my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Raymond) for example, and there are those from the prairies who take the other extreme view of absolutely no tariff for protection. My hon. friend the leader of the Progressive party has stated that he does not consider the protectionist principle suitable for this country. He used much stronger language than that during the election, because I remember one of his statements, which I quoted freely during the campaign:
The principle of protection is condemned at the bar of decent public opinion on moral grounds alone.
I consider that probably we may bring into this discussion all the arguments of economics and of fact without importing

the moral argument, although I remember well reading an argument between Gladstone and some one else in which he introduced the moral argument. As a matter of fact I do not think there are any moral arguments to be brought against the protectionist principle, as all countries have at times been protectionist. But I should like to point out to my hon. friends, particularly to those in this section of the House, a fact that might be worthy of consideration. The hon. member who leads the Progressive party took the stand, and quite rightly, that the Fordney tariff had injured the great agricultural interests in this country. I agree with him. In my own constituency there are a number of cattle-raisers-I have a large farming population in my riding, and I must confess that they made their presence felt at the polls. Those cattle-raisers were very much injured by the Fordney tariff, as were also all others engaged in agriculture in this country. As a remedy the hon. leader of the Progressive party suggested that we endeavour to come to an arrangement with the United States whereby they will lower that tariff and give an opportunity to our agriculturalists to sell more of their products in the United States than they sold during the past year. I have no quarr-1 with him in regard to that suggestion, but 1 wish to point out to him that the only way you can negotiate or bargain with another country is under a protective tariff system. If you adopt a free trade system you cannot so negotiate or bargain; you have thrown away your only weapon. Germany before the war, as everybody knows, was rapidly gaining upon Great Britain in the markets of the world, and in many of the markets near both of them had surpassed her rival; in fact before the war Germany had ousted the British traders to the extent that the Germans surpassed them in the amount of goods sold in many markets. In Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and Holland on the west of Germany, and in Russia, Roumania, Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria on the east,-ten important countries-Germany, before the war, had surpassed British trade. How had she done it? By that very method of-bargaining and negotiating with these other countries through a protective tariff. Ger many negotiated in 1903 or 1904 a treaty with Russia, and under that treaty she rapidly ousted Britain from the Russian markets.
So I think it is worth the time of my hon. friends from the West to remember

The Address
273.
that we can only negotiate with the United States to modify the Fordney tariff under a protective system. It is also worth remembering that although Britain adopted free trade in 1846 none of the other great countries of the world have considered it wise to follow her example-a fact which would make every reasonable man hesitate to condemn those who do not agree with them in regard to tariff policy, because, as I think the late Joseph Chamberlain once said, he did not consider that all the brains of the world were confined to the British Isles; he thought that some other countries of the world had views upon this question, views worthy of consideration.
I think I am right in saying that the excessive railway rates at present in force are of more importance to the farmers of the West than is the tariff. I do not know whether that meets with the approval of my hon. friends, the Progressives, or not, but I believe that is the fact. At any rate the excessive railway rates are a very great burden and should direct the attention of these hon. members to the thought that there are other things which need revision besides the tariff. It is well to remember that this country is really divided into five main sections; First, we have the Maritime provinces with interests, aspirations, and desires different from those entertained in other sections; west of the Maritime provinces you find Quebec and Ontario, and with all their quibbling about race and creed-although perhaps there is not so much bickering as we sometimes think- they have absolutely the same interest in industrial, agriculture and trade matters; then going to the western part of Ontario we reach the section which I have the honour to represent, more or less undeveloped, the section from North Bay to the Manitoba border or, say, to Winnipeg, with vast natural resources of iron and other minerals, and the people having their ideas, aspirations and desires as have the other sections; then you come to the Prairie provinces, where wheat growing is the main occupation and all the aspirations of the people centre around the tariff as affecting their principal product; Lastly we cross the Rocky Mountains and get into British Columbia whose views have been so well expressed by hon. members from that province who have preceded me, but views differing from the views of the people in the Prairie provinces. There you have five distinct sections. I will admit that agriculture is the most important industry in this country, but
manufacturing is also an important industry. Many of us cannot be farmers; many of us do not wish to grow wheat or live on farms. Many of us in the eastern sections of Canada-Ontario and Quebec:-desire a different kind of life from that of the man on the prairies. Taking into consideration, then, the different ideas and interests of the different sections of this country, it would be well for my hon. friends from the Prairie provinces to remember that this question cannot be settled if only one section is taken into account. It is a question which must be settled by having regard to the best interests of the whole country- the greatest good to the greatest number. Indeed, some sections may have to make sacrifices. My hon. friends to my left, for example, may say that they are expected Lc make all the sacrifices; on the other hand, the hon. member for Brantford contends that Brantford has been making all the sacrifices. Some industrial men think that they are making all the sacrifices. Now, I am not a high protectionist. In fact, 1 am a doctor of medicine; I am not interested directly either in farming or in manufacturing, but I am trying to look at this question from the broad, national point of view, and I submit that it cannot be settled by proceeding in the interests of only one portion of the country. The manufacturer of the East must make sacrifices, and so far as I am concerned I would go a long way towards seeing that he does. The farmer of the West cannot have it all his own way. After all, as somebody said a few minutes ago, Toronto is not the whole of Canada, but neither are the Prairie provinces. No one of these sections is the whole of Canada.
In conclusion, I wish to say that as regards the tariff question, as in the case of race, creed, and other differences- largely due to the immense area of our country and its relatively small population-we must have less selfish class interest, less sectionalism, and more unity, a greater national desire to build up our country. If we do not have that, we shall not attain the object which we must all have in mind, that of building up on the northern half of this continent a great Canadian nation.


Mr. ONESIPHORE TURGEON (Gloucester) :: Mr. Speaker, although quite a number of hon. members have since the beginning of this debate showered upon you their congratulations in language much better than I have at my command, nevertheless, I cannot refrain from expressing,

The Address

with that sincerity which is, perhaps my only virtue, my appreciation of your elevation to the post of Canada's First Commoner. The high offices which you have occupied on different occasions when many years younger than you are to-day, the duties of which you discharged with such credit to the party to which you belong and to the country generally, have only served to increase your qualifications for the position which you now adorn. We shall regret the absence of your eloquence in many of the debates, but we hope that the time will come when you will again assist us, as you have so ably done in the past, in the discussions which take place on the floor of Parliament.
I wish to extend my congratulations to the mover of the Address (Mr. McMurray). On his first coming into the House he has certainly indicated his possession of breadth of intellect, and has expressed his ideals and ambitions in language characteristic of the firmness and vitality of the western mind. The seconder of the Address also (Mr. Mercier) expressed elevated ideals in a manner designed to uphold the honour of the Mercier family.
It is my pleasant duty also, Mr. Speaker, to extend most sincerely and respectfully my congratulations to the only lady member of the House, the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail). She may be sure that she will command the respect of the House and of the country as the first lady commoner in Canada. I trust that her example will be followed by many of her sex in the next Parliament and that, gifted with equally admirable qualities and noble virtues, they may adorn this, the sanctuary of the Canadian nation, and exert their influence to permeate the precincts of Parliament with the beneficent influence of mutual Christian feeling.
I cannot refrain from extending through you, Mr. Speaker, my heartiest congratulations to the new Governor General of Canada, Lord Byng of Vimy. He has won the sympathy of every subject of the British Empire and of the world at large; he was with the Canadian army in the most trying days of the great war. Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that among the many Canadian soldiers who went on to victory under his guidance and direction there were a number of Acadians from my own constituency as well as from other parts of the Maritime provinces. I wish that His Excellency may know that every one of those Acadian soldiers-and

I know that the same applies to all others who served from different parts of the Empire-regard him as their idol.
My chief object in rising to-day, Mr. Speaker, is to support the statement of ideals placed before the House and the country by hon. members from Nova Scotia -the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) and the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald). In passing, I may say that all the old members of the House are pleased to see these hon. gentlemen again in Parliament; we are sure that their presence will result in benefit to the country at large. It was with a great deal of pleasure that I heard the hon. member for Cumberland place before the House th( problems of the Maritime provinces. Without the construction of the Intercolonial railway there would have been no Confederation; the Maritime provinces would still be trading and bargaining with other countries-though, perhaps, to their greater economic and financial advantage. It was the will of Providence that gave us our open harbours on the Atlantic, for without them and the Intercolonial there could have been no real progress in commerce and industry for this country, and it would have remained for Ontario and Quebec to be at the whim, to use the words of Sir George Etienne Cartier, of the officials of the customs department of the United States. Perhaps also there would not have been those pleasant relations that now exist with our neighbours to the south. But with these open ports on the Atlantic placed there, to use the language of Joseph Howe, by the will of Providence, not merely the Maritime provinces but the whole of Canada benefits, and will continue to progress and increase in population and in wealth until we become one of the greatest countries in the world in trade and in human effort. The Intercolonial railway must, however, be operated in the interests of the Maritime provinces. It has been said by hon. gentlemen who have preceded me in this debate that the Intercolonial railway was built with a view to protecting the whole British Empire against the possible annexation of this country to the United States. The road was built not so much for the purpose of establishing the shortest trade route, but in order to give Canada a through railway from the Atlantic to the Pacific. We in the Maritime provinces wish the Intercolonial railway to remain an entity. The chief idea of the people of the Mari-

The Address
time provinces when coming into Confederation and the chief ambition of the people of the West when the Maritime provinces were brought into Confederation, was that the people of the East might have the advantage of being able to send their products to Canadian points instead of sending them, as they had formerly done, to the United States. It was to be of mutual benefit to the East and the West. But it is only by keeping this road under the direct administration of the Dominion of Canada that we can expect it to fulfill the mission for which it was built, and to give the people of the Maritime provinces that prosperity which they have a right to expect from trade with the Canadian West.
The administration of the Intercolonial was transferred by the previous Government to a Board of Directors acting independently of the Minister of Railways. That was done by Order in Council. Now, the construction of the Intercolonial as I have said, is a part of the pact of Confederation, and you cannot change that pact by Orders in Council; you cannot change it even by act of this Parliament; you can only change it by the unanimous will and consent of every province of Canada, and so far as the Maritime provinces are concerned, we are against any possible change in the constitution in that respect, even by request of a majority of this Parliament. The Intercolonial railway must remain there as long as the Constitution of this country remains; it must remain there for the happiness and prosperity of the Maritime provinces. This does not mean that we in our section of the country entertain any narrow feelings. In no other part of the country, perhaps, will you find so deep-rooted a desire for the happiness of every section of Canada. Joseph Howe one day said that Canada may yet become the centre of the British Empire and the seat of government be located in the centre of Canada, perhaps at Regina. That was only an illustration of the great desire the people of the Maritime provinces have for the nro-gress of this great garden of ours -for	our country extending for
thousands of miles from the Atlantic to the Pacific is a garden from one end to the other; you cannot put your foot on any part of the territory of Canada without trampling on some resource, either in the forests or on the prairies that will be developed and bring prosperity to future generations. We have all these considerations in mind, and it is because we wish the whole of Canada to be happy and pros-
18|
perous and to attain to a greater future that we wish to keep perhaps this only privilege which may bring happiness to every man and woman in the Maritime
provinces.
Mr. Speaker, you know what the consequences have been of the transfer by Order in Council by the late Government of the administration of the Intercolonial railway to a Board of Directors sitting in Toronto. The Intercolonial railway has been placed in the same position as the other roads that have been brought under the control of that board; the result has been the excessive freight rates of which we have heard so much of late. Even two years ago when the Government placed the Intercolonial under the administration of this board, composed in the main of representatives of the Mackenzie and Mann system, I rose in this House and warned the Minister of Railways, the Prime Minister, and the Government of the day, against an increase in the freight rates on the railways. At the time I explained in as clear and forceful a manner as I could the result which would ensue to the industries of the country if, under the conditions which prevailed, the freight rates were to be increased merely to make good the deficiencies of a corporation which had not been able to show the same measure of success as other private corporations operating a similar mileage of railroad in Canada. I warned the Minister of Railways of that day that the existing freight rates were sufficient for the proper and successful operation of our railroads; and I pointed out that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, operating a similar mileage, had during the year 1920 been able to show a surplus of $32,000,000 after meeting all charges, while the government-owned railways, covering a similar mileage and operated from Toronto, had experienced a deficit of $47,000,000. I declared at the time that this deficit was due to defective administration; and I uttered the warning that if an increase of rates were granted by the Railway Commission disastrous results to trade throughout the country would follow. I am now in a position to say that had my warning been heeded by the government of the day, Canada would have been spared great disasters which have had the effect of stifling industry from one end of the country to the other.
On another occasion I implored the administration to put an end to the heavy rates which were crippling industry equally
The Address

in the West and in the East. So great was the resulting paralysis of trade due to increased rates that the export of lumber from the Maritime provinces to the United States ports was blocked. On the Pacific coast the lumber industry suffered to an equal extent; and even the luscious apple of British Columbia was debarred from access to the Prairie provinces by these onerous freight rates. In the mines of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick operations were greatly impeded, and other Canadian products were prevented from reaching their natural markets. In the matter, for example, of iron ore it is easy to realize how expensive the frequent handling becomes and how greatly the ultimate cost is enhanced. Then the ore goes into the hands of the manufacturer, and is converted into agricultural implements, and, of course, you have to pay something for that operation; then it goes to the farmers of the West. All these operations increase the cost of production, until it is hardly worth while for the farmer to purchase the implement. The country at large has been suffering for some eighteen months from unemployment, caused by the maladministration of our railways, the direct cause being the increase of rates which has stopped the trade on the railways. The railway companies have had to dismiss their men, when business fell off. They had the equipment and employees ready for a big trade when the rates were increased. They had heavy trains, sufficient to carry thousands of tons of material at the same price as it had been carried previously. Subsequently they had to cut down' the trains and haul about half the number of cars, at practically the same expense as would have been incurred if they had a big trade. This is the result of this increase of rates.
They have given as an excuse for the increase of rates the fact that they had to increase the wages of the working men on the railway, because the United States had raised it also under some international agreement. I make bold to say, even with all the admiration I have for the manner in which the Canadian Pacific have always conducted their business, that the managers of the road were not equal to the occasion. When they raised the wages they looked for a greater traffic, and a more extensive trade, but they should have known that they could not obtain it, and that imposing high freight rates would have the reverse effect, and the result would be

a paralysis of trade. They have suffered also. They have come back, not with a surplus of $32,000,000, but of $18,000,000. The Canadian Pacific have lost more than the amount of additional wages they had to pay.
I regret that our hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) is absent to-day, owing to the visit of Providence upon his brother, whose death has certainly caused him great sorrow, and I sympathize with him. If he were here to-day I would say to him: Give every possible consideration to the request made by the Maritime provinces, so that their future prosperity may not be hampered by want of railway connections with other parts of Canada. I have confidence that he and his associates in the Government of Canada will certainly see that those freight rates are reduced. I have heard my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Baxter) also complaining of the excessive rates. I heard my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) protesting against the freight rates. The thing I greatly regret is that my hon. friend from Vancouver did not protest two or three years ago. These rates were imposed at the request of the Government of the day, whom the railway were supporting at the time. The supporters of that Government will say, however, that those rates were imposed by the Railway Commission. It is true they were imposed by the Railway Commission, but the Government was not bound to accept the award of the Railway Commission. They could have suspended it until the next session of Parliament, and could then have brought the matter before Parliament, which, after all, is a final tribunal. It is well known that the Railway Commission has no jurisdiction over the rates of the Intercolonial from Halifax or Sydney to Montreal. I believe I express faithfully the opinion of the chairman of the Railway Commission who stated that as far as the Intercolonial railway was concerned, he had no authority over these rates. The government of the day accepted the order for an increase to please Mr. Hanna and his associates in the Board of Administration of the National Railways in Toronto.
This is not the first time that I have advocated in this House that the administration of the Intercolonial railway should be under a separate head. Canada is provided with an immense mileage of national railways. We must do the best we can to operate these lines to the best advan-

The Address
tage of the people. I do not say that these railways should be given back to private corporations. I am one of the few, perhaps, who have been not only desirous of having under the control of the State, not only the Intercolonial but the whole Transcontinental in order that it might be operated to the best advantage of the people. Administration by corporations means profit for the corporation at the expense of the public. Administration by the government is not designed for profit; after paying expenses, the people receive a profit in the way of low rates. Many members on both sides of the House, have boasted of their aspirations for national roads. We had only begun to look seriously into the question of operation by government when the government had to take over the railroads, which had gone into bankruptcy on account of the railway policy of Canada. I am in favour of operation of a certain portion of our roads by the State and I have contended at different times in this House that we should have not only the Intercolonial railway in the Maritime provinces, but also two or three more units, portions or divisions, of the National railway, where the local traffic would be more under the supervision of local men, where it could be operated with more promptitude and to better advantage in the way of freight rates. Freight rates should be arranged with a view to the greatest possible development of our natural resources, and the cheapest possible transmission of manufactured products through the country. This proposition should , more particularly appeal 5 p.m. to a country like Canada, with a territory of four or five thousand miles in length. We cannot expect to have a prosperous condition in Canada, if we are to have rates by mileage from one end of the country to the other, and that has been practically the effect of the last increase in rates. In France or Great Britain, where a large percentage of the production could be transported from one end of the country to the other in a few hours, the proposition is a different one. At the most rapid rate possible, it will take a freight train eight or ten days to travel across Canada. The product which has left Halifax must be carried to its destination in the West. Lumber shipped from British Columbia must go right through until it reaches the prairies to find a market. It is only by the establishment of divisions that you can possibly reach a degree of perfection of operation,
which one single central administration is not able to do in a country like Canada.
I suggest again that we should have another division in Montreal or Toronto, in order to provide for transportation further west up to the head of the Great Lakes. We might have divisions in Winnipeg and Vancouver on the Pacific coast, so that all the products of the different portions of Canada may reach the different parts of the country where they are needed. It is the only possible way to make a profit on the railway and create an expansion of trade. And the divisions of which I have spoken should have their centre in Ottawa, not Toronto.
Our friends on the other side of the House are clamouring for national operation of railways. I am with them to a certain extent. We have to administer the railways, in a manner acceptable to the masses of the people. If we fail today in government operation, it will certainly be a great detriment to the people. We cannot continue to repeat the deficits of seventy millions or a hundred millions of dollars which have occurred daring the last two or three years. It is only by the best possible method of operation that we can wipe out these deficits, which threaten to ruin the people of Canada. In the United States of America during the war the railways were placed under the administration of the government. Those who were at the head of the administration were anxious to make the operation a success. If the railways of the United States had remained under the control of the government, divisions would have been established, to the great benefit of the whole country at large.
The railways should be given a fair trial under government ownership, and if they proved a success and contributed to the prosperity of the country then they could remain permanently the property of the Canadian people. At all events I have complete confidence in the new Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy), and, with his experience and success in business, government ownership of railways in Canada ought to be successful, if it can be successful anywhere.
It is my belief that no statesman has more enjoyed the confidence of the people than our present admirable leader (Mr. Mackenzie King), who is proving from day to day, as occasion offers, that he will be a worthy successor to that greatest of all Canadian statesmen whom we still lament, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. With the present Prime Minister at the head of affairs, and
The Address

with his two eminently qualified lieutenants, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding)

[DOT] a man, I might say, of world fame-and the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin), who, as an administrator, has won an enviable reputation for himself, we have three men who, I think, are equal in mentality and patriotic vision to any triumvirate of the Roman Empire. With such statesmen directing the affairs of the country the people may well be optimistic. The confidence the people have in these three leaders and their able colleagues was shown in the result of the election on December 6. I was sorry the other day to hear the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) echoing the remarks of other hon. gentlemen who have charged the Liberal party with responsibility for the present unfortunate state of affairs in connection with our railways. Some one, I believe, has said that the present deficit was the child of the Liberal party, which that party left at the door of the Conservative Government in 1911. Well, Sir, whatever political offspring the Liberal party handed over to the care of the Conservative government were in healthy condition, and if they are now unhealthy it is due to the carelessness and neglect of the late Conservative governments that held power from 1911. The Liberal Government has been found fault with for the construction of the Transcontinental. I have always contended, and I still contend, that the Transcontinental from Winnipeg to Moncton is one of the greatest public utilities that we have ever had in this country. It was built in order to bring what I may call the granary of the British Empire closer in touch with the ports leading to the markets of Europe. It was solidly constructed, and I am confident that it has entirely justified its construction. In view of the geographical conditions of the country I think it will be admitted that the Transcontinental Railway from Winnipeg to Moncton was absolutely necessary. Ever since its construction the farmers of the Prairie provinces have been able to ship their products a great deal more cheaply than they could have done without that railway. But the Conservative government was content to complacently allow that immense volume of traffic to flow to American ports instead of to our own ports. I have on many occasions called the attention of the House to this discrimination in favour of American ports, and I am sorry to see my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) assuming the sins 
of the Conservative party which he was not responsible for committing. I would have thought that he would not care to be responsible for the blunders of others. I hope that the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) will do all in his power to consolidate the railroads of the Maritime provinces into that complete and well coordinated unit which I and my colleagues for those provinces are anxious to see, and that he will also realize the advantage of establishing other units in the best interests of the administration of our national railway system.
The hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Manion) referred to my views on the tariff question-a question which I had not intended to touch upon to-day. I need only say that I am still a free trader in principle, both in theory and in practice, as far as it is possible to apply free trade to our national conditions. I rejoice that that principle was recognized in 1910-11 when the Liberal administration proposed a measure of reciprocity with the United States. It was the largest measure of free trade-concession for concession- which Canada could ever hope to get from the country to the south of us, and had our people approved the proposal they would have derived the greatest possible benefit from its operation. Unfortunately they decided otherwise, due mainly to the campaign tactics adopted by the Conservative party, with the result that we have today the Progressive movement, so bitterly bewailed by our Conservative friends. But they should remember that that movement in the Western provinces owed its origin to the resentment of the prairie farmers at the loss of that prosperity which they would have enjoyed under reciprocity with the United States. To-day we have in this House the Progressive party, and with its help the Liberal party defeated the late Conservative government at the last election and retired them to Opposition for many years to come. It is a pleasure to see the father of that reciprocity measure again directing the financial affairs of the nation, and undoubtedly his name will go down in our history as a statesman who had the greatest economic vision of any of his contemporaries.
Speaking last year to my right hon. friend the present leader of the Opposition, I advised him at the time of his appointment to the leadership of his party to go to the country, otherwise he would lose ground and, if he delayed too long, would

The Address
certainly fail to return to power, and would find himself in this House with only a small band of supporters. I proved a true prophet on that occasion. However, he will now be able to exercise his natural talent in fault-finding, and I wish him many years of health and strength that he may contribute as leader of the Opposition to giving the country good government through placing us on this side of the House upon our guard against a repetition of the errors which characterized his conduct of affairs.
One of the most vital questions now engaging our attention is that of the restoration of their natural resources to the Western provinces. I may not be in agreement with some of my colleagues from the Maritime provinces, and what I am going to say will be upon my personal responsibility, not as a member of the party. My view is that rt is only by contributing to the happiness of the people in every province that we may become a united, happy, and prosperous nation. The happiness of the.people of British Columbia and the Prairie provinces is as important to me as the happiness of my people in the Maritime provinces. Of what advantage would it be for us to have a few million dollars more in our treasury and at the same time to forfeit the goodwill of the people of the West? And of what advantage would it be to the people of the West to trade with the United States instead of with the rest of Canada if their domestic and community life were uncomfortable and unhappy? We know that when the western part of our country was divided into provinces, a portion of the natural resources was retained by the Dominion. But these natural resources were retained as a paternal consideration, not because it was thought that they would never be restored to the provinces. It was thought that the administration of these resources would require a large population and large expenditure, and that the provinces could not hear the burden in the early stages of their development. I was a member of the House when, in 1905, the natural resources of the newly-created western provinces were retained under Dominion authority, and I then expressed the hope that their population and general development would ultimately become such as to justify the return of their natural resources to the provincial authority. Perhaps we did not anticipate the rapid development which was to take place in the West and which has excited the admiration of the people not only of Canada but of other countries as well. In less than a score of years a wonderful development has taken place; education has been encouraged; school houses and universities have been established1-and all these things have resulted in great benefits not only to the people of the western provinces but to Canada as a whole. The men of the West have worked energetically, day and night when necessary, to provide for their families and promote the general interests of the communities in which they live. The women of the West have grown not only beautiful, but patriotic and industrious, contributing their efforts to those of their husbands and children for the common good of the country. _ Western people are known as ambitious people, and the development of the natural resources is a noble ambition to cherish. The westerner has sought to make his family happy, and on the happiness of the family is based in a large measure the welfare of the country as a whole. The women of the Prairie provinces have exerted great influence in the matter of bringing about temperance legislation. My hon friend, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) will bear witness to that; he was a member of a provincial government which put through a measure of temperance, largely at the; request of the women of his province; and the same is true of other provinces.
As I say, there are two great aspects in a consideration of the question of restoring to the provinces their natural resources. Large subsidies have been paid to the provinces which have not been given the control of their natural resources, and, in the East, of course, there is a feeling that if these natural resources revert to the provinces we are entitled to compensation. But as I say, of what advantage will it be to the people of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Quebec to say: You shall not get your natural resources until you pay us a large sum of money? Might not the Prairie provinces in retaliation say to any in the East who suggested refusing the West access to our ports: We will not send you our products for export; we will export through the United States? And of what advantage would it be to the people of the Prairie provinces to say: We will not give up the subsidies, because in connection with the administration of these natural resources we have sustained1 loss? I have a sympathetic feeling for the people of the Prairie provinces, because I have travelled
The Address

among them and I know them. What I say in regard to this matter is the expression of conclusions at which I have arrived, based largely on knowledge obtained through my contact with western people. So I say, why not compromise at once? Let the people of the Prairie provinces and their governments say: We will relinquish the subsidy, which we accepted as only a temporary measure until we would have the benefit of the administration of our own resources. And let the people of the East say: We are satisfied; what is a few million dollars as compared with harmony within the nation?
Mr. Speaker, I have submitted these remarks as suggestions of my own and without implicating any of my fellow members on this side of the House, not even any representative from Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. I have made these suggestions because I feel that if we do not arrive at a harmonious settlement it will be many long years before a monetary settlement can be arrived at. I believe it would be for the benefit of all that the Prairie provinces should be given a full measure of freedom in developing their own resources; and if that is done, and if they progress as they have done in the last score of years, I say that Canada will become a country that will command the respect not only of the United States but of Europe as well.


Mr. ARTHUR LUCIEN BEAUBIEN (Provencher) (Translation) :: Allow me, Mr. Speaker, at the outset to join with those who have preceded me in this debate and no doubt with others from all parts of Canada in offering you my congratulations on your election to the post of First Commoner. Being a new member, I have not had like many other previous speakers, the advantage of personally appreciating the interest and zeal you have shown in the study of the questions submitted to this House, and bearing on the administration of the affairs of Canada. Your zeal seconded by a great love of your country, by eminent qualities, by serious studies of problems to be solved both in and out of this Dominion and by a long parliamentary experience had prominently placed you in the foremost rank of this House. It therefore was no surprise to anyone to hear the Prime Minister forecast your election to the exalted post you now so gracefully occupy. I wish to compliment the mover of the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne and also the one who so

eloquently and cleverly seconded the motion. If we may judge from their debut, we may certainly foretell that these two gentlemen will render valuable service to Parliament and, as a proof of my sincerity in congratulating them, I express the hope that from this new generation will rise a great number of men endowed with the same eloquence and talents, who will spread from ocean to ocean what we believe to be a sound doctrine, the policy of the Progressive party. The Speech from the Throne referred to many aspects of this policy. The most important of which touched on the price of farm products. The foundation of happiness and prosperity in this country is interwoven with the happiness and prosperity of the farming class. It is through the strenuous efforts of the farmer that the products which sustain industry and commerce are brought forth from the land. If the supply from this source decreases we are confronted with industrial depression and the calamities of unemployment mentioned in the Speech from the Throne follow; business is at a standstill, financial institutions are anxious and tottering, and misery-ill adviser-visits many homes, uneasiness is felt everywhere, the world is upset, the whole social structure menaced with destruction totter at the very bottom of its foundation. The Progressive party is well suited for the hour. It is here to ask the Government to ameliorate by well adapted laws the most unfortunate lot of the farmer and thereby strengthen the foundation on which rests all social classes.
The Speech from the Throne seems to presage that laws will be enacted with that aim in view. Those whose object is to reduce the cost of transportation, the lowering of the tariff which will help in cutting down the cost of production, the expansion of our commerce, a greater outlet for our products, the establishment of a commission for the purchase of wheat, the removal of a great number of unnecessary middlemen between the producer and the consumer, the immigration of bona-fide settlers who will help to increase the production of our country, more facilities in obtaining farm-hands, all these measures will receive our hearty approval, because they will become a powerful lever, from the bottom upwards towards raising to a state of happiness all social classes.
The Progressive party is not selfish and does not restrict its work to ensuring prosperity of the farmer alone, exclusive of

The Address
all others. If it asks a greater measure of justice for the farming class, the reason is that on its welfare depends the welfare of others. One might be led to believe that the farmer is not so badly off as he says, that he is dealt with justice and that he has no more to put up with than others. Let us examine his condition. At dawn of day, and even sometimes before, he is to be found at work and his labours never cease until long after sunset. Where is to be found the labourers who would accept sixteen hours of work a day? No complaint would ever come from the farmer if he could obtain like his fellow-citizens of other classes a dependable return for each hour's work. But for the last two years the farmer's revenue does not suffice to cover his expenses, and he knows that if his hard labour does not receive a just compensation, it is because too many middlemen speculators or profiteers want to reap a portion of the results of his strenuous work, either through the sale of the implements he needs for farming or through the handling of his products before they reach the consumer. All we ask for the farmers, is a just remuneration for their work.
The Speech from the Throne contains a reference to our national railway system in terms rather vague and indefinite. For many years past, the Government has registered a considerable deficit on these railways and we are somewhat astonished to learn that after years of experiment by the late government and of study and criticism on the part of the Opposition at that time, which has now assumed power, no solution has so far been found to remedy this state of things.
According to the Speech from the Throne we must have a through inquiry. It is time to act and we therefore expected to hear in that speech a well defined policy.
The Progressive party's programme is very clear on that point and is in striking contrast with that of the Government. We want state ownership of railways as it is carried on in the best organized states of the old continent. Thus allowing the profits, which will eventually be realized from these railways, to become a source of revenue not to the wealthy shareholders but to the people. I do not wish to close these brief remarks without proclaiming myself with pride a follower of the leader of the Progressive party. No one has made a deeper study of our economic conditions and no one desires more the happiness and prosperity of all parts of the
country. There is no greater patriot nor one more worthy of the people's confidence. The day is not very remote when this confidence will spread from coast to coast and will result in a victory which will assure national prosperity.
Mr. EDOUARD CHARLES St. PERE (Hochelaga) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, before going into the subject of the few remarks which I intend to make in reference to the Speech from the Throne, let me first congratulate you upon your election to the speakership of the House of Commons. You presided over my first political effort and, by a happy coincidence, you preside to-day on the occasion of my first attempt in this House, to take part, the best I can in the patriotic debates of the Canadian Parliament.
I do not wish to go any further without first extending my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in answer to the Speech from the Throne.
I must add, using an old stereotyped phrase dear to our profession, that they have proved once more, "Qu 'aux ames bien nees la valeur n'attend pas le nombre des annees."
Mr. Speaker, it would be to depart now from our French tradition of politeness, if I forgot to offer our colleague from Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) my most sincere congratulations upon her election to this House.
I have followed closely the different speeches which were made upon the address and I believe, contrary to the claim of a number of our friends on the Opposition benches, that the Speech from the Throne comprised on the whole very important questions which necessitate' the immediate consideration of this House. The Government admits that Canada has successfully passed through the economic crisis which the war forced upon us, and notwithstanding what our opponents may still say, I shall repeat with the hon. Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) that it is since the advent of the Liberal party to power, that the Canadian people have recovered hope and see that a sound administration has succeeded to one but too oblivious of the public welfare.
Mr. Speaker, the tariff is one of the questions which has a foremost interest in this House. It was much debated during the course of the last electoral campaign and since it is made a primordial question, as member for Hochelaga-even though I am at present but a novice in politics

I am
The Address

in duty bound to pause a moment, without however entering into all the details of this important subject. Our friends on the Opposition benches seemed to lay stress on the fact that the present Government had not adopted, or rather was not adopting a definite policy on the tariff, so far as conveyed by the Speech from the Throne. In reading over attentively the speeches made by these gentlemen in the course of the last few years, I have yet to find, amongst the governments that have preceded the present one, a Prime Minister who, with regard to this question of tariff or on many other questions had adopted a definite policy. It is, according to my humble opinion, an economic principle that a country must adapt its tariff policy to the modalities of the policy followed by its neighbours and in a more generalized form to that adopted by the great world powers. Briefly, I believe that on this tariff question as well as on many others, we must be up-to-date and that we must not entirely refer to the past to adopt a policy on the subject. Times change and it is by a careful revision well calculated to fit in broadly with the needs of our Dominion that we must consider this question. Personally, being of French Canadian extraction, I am first of all a Canadian and it is my opinion that, in its widest accepted sense, the Canadian must not be provincial but must be first and above all Canadian. From the beginning of this debate, Mr. Speaker, we have also been witnessing a discussion on immigration. The latter is deemed in certain spheres absolutely necessary to the prosperity of the Western provinces, a means to draw greater returns for our railway system; on the whole, according to some, it would be the remedy which would set on a firm basis our country's economic system. Our Western friends seem to insist that it should be recruited mainly in the farming class. That is a very good suggestion; however, on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult to limit immigration to that class only, seeing that Canada must be and, I believe, is a land of freedom to which all classes of people, I mean the good classes-and I especially lay stress, Mr. Speaker, on the word "good1"-must have access. But I shall here make a distinction. If we must open wide the doors of our country, let this immigration be selective at the port of emigration so that the refuse of old Europe be not dumped upon our shores. I feel morally convinced that it will be [Mr. St. Pfere.J
absolutely necessary that this immigration be not too great so as to avoid, in times of economic depression such as we are experiencing, that the problem of unemployment do not become more difficult through over population.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock I was discussing the question of unemployment which was so prominently brought forward all over the country in the course of the last electoral campaign. To-day it outlines itself again under a very keen aspect. I am not in the habit of playing to the gallery, however, belonging to that great political party which has always been the party of the masses, the one which has always so strongly proclaimed "miseror super turbam". I therefore deem it my duty to ask this House to take a special interest on this question. I am the representative of an electoral division made up on the whole of seven eighths of artisans and I feel that these people have given convincing and sufficient proof of their attachment to the Liberal cause and of their approval of its policy by electing your humble servant by a majority of 17,000 votes at the last general election. I therefore request that relief be sought as soon as possible for this abnormal condition and I have no fear of contradiction in stating in this House that the Liberal party was the first to take up that question; the hon. Leader of the Government has given proof of his solicitude when he proposed to the different municipalities and provincial governments of Canada to help them in relieving unemployment by offering to contribute effectively in the furtherance of public enterprises. The Canadian artisan does not cater to that class of writers on political economy who believe that the State should provide for him. He does not wish to beg officially from any one; however he demands that the government concede, through just and most effective legislation, the facilities of earning his daily bread and that of his family, moreover the means of giving to his children that intellectual food so indispensable, to-day, to the prosperity of nations: education.
I therefore believe and I have reason to hope that this Government will even go

The Address
further than the programme which it has already prepared towards relieving unemployment.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the question to be considered and I will venture to say the one most to the fore is that which relates to our railways. Some are partisans of private ownership of our system of railways, others demand State ownership. Opinions are well divided on the subject.
I do not pretend to be at my age-and I am comparatively young-an expert on matters of railway management, but I represent in the city of Montreal an electoral division consisting of a great number of employees of our railway system, and at the risk of displeasing a number of our friends on the other side of the House, I feel that I am in a position to state that a number of these employees have admitted to me in their typical way that the present managers of the Government railways "were not railroad men".
The present Government has decided to give a fair trial to the public ownership of railways. Many in this House have spoken of co-ordination. Mr. Speaker, since so much is said in favour of co-ordination, it will not be considered an evidence of jingoism on my part to take up the matter. May I suggest in behalf of my constituents, in behalf of the French-Canadian people of the county of Hochelaga, that, when this co-ordination, this re-organization is being done, it be required from the employees of these national railways, at any rate from those who are supposed to serve the people in my province, that they be perfectly conversant with the two languages recognized as the official languages of this country. There exists at present an evident and well known fact, and that is, our national railways have large annual deficits which have to be met out of the public Treasury. This is a well known thing, and I hope that, thanks to the excellent method to be adopted by the Government in its re-organization of this system, Canada may soon know that not only are our national railway systems well re-organized internally, but that they will soon prove profitable to the country.
Much has been said in this House about redistribution. If I only wished to be selfish on this subject, I should immediately declare myself in favour of this project so much insisted upon but, should the Government ever think it advisable to redistribute the different counties in Canada, I should ask them, before they do so, to render justice to certain parts in my province where the census was not properly taken
under the last administration. And this I would ask not only for my own province, but with the breadth of view which shall always be my aim, I am ready to endorse any such request, whatever may be the district it comes from.
A reduction of railway rates has also been discussed. In the United States as well as in Canada, economists, business men, financiers, all agree on the subject. On this point again I feel confident that, owing to the present Prime Minister being a student in economics, this question will be solved to the entire satisfaction of our national interests.
Mr. Speaker, our kind friends of the Progressive party have stated their demands at length. They insist principally on the reestablishment of the Wheat Board. The people of the province of Quebec, which is composed largely of agriculturists, is of course, greatly interested in these demands;
I shall therefore request the devoted followers of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) to throw more light on the nature of this Board, why they want it to be restored as soon as possible. What ever may be said, the province of Quebec is anxious for knowledge, and I may affirm, without boast-nig, that the people of this province are well educated and take great interest in all important public matters. I therefore ask our kind friends of the Progressive party, and I do not doubt that they will be eagerly listened to by all who, on this side of the House, are not posted as to the activities and the importance of this institution for which they clamour so persistently.
Mr. Speaker, you undoubtedly expect that I should express, my various impressions now that I have been sitting in this House for a few days, I must first admit that I have been deeply moved by all the imposing ceremonial of the opening of Parliament; I saw such a display of brilliancy that I have been wondering if we were truly a colony and did deserve to be called a Dominion.
Our country, have we said and repeated, must practise a sound political economy. I have been told that expenses have already been reduced in the Militia Department. I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that I rejoice at the news; not that I condemn all military expenditure; but, being a journalist, upon perusal of the " Canadian Almanack ", it struck me that too many brigadier-generals are receiving salaries from seven to nine thousand dollars annually, while our labourers are on the brink of starvation.
Mr. Speaker, it has been said, and I think that this afternoon, the hon. member for
The Address

Port William and Rainy River (Mr Manion) gave us to understand that the present Government had done very little to remedy the present abnormal business situation in which the country has been left by the preceding Government. I agree with him to a certain extent, but think he should make a distinction.
The present Government somehow resembles the medical man who is suddenly summoned following a drowning accident. The country had been left in such a pitiful condition by our friends of the Opposition that, whatever the medical science of the Liberal party, the latter have been endeavouring, since the elections, to practise arti-fiicial respiration on this half-suffocated administration. The country, I am sure, will learn with pleasure that the present doctor reports progress.
Mr. Speaker, I have noticed something else in the House of Commons. I have spent the greater part of my ife amongst English-speaking friends, and I should never have expected that so many in this House would rise and claim peace, good will and harmony between races; I had thought that it was a well understood fact, and I may truly say that in my native province, I do not know and have never known any ill-feeling, any misunderstanding between the races. It is to be hoped that, for the general welfare of the country, the wish expressed by our friends of the Opposition and of the Progressive party will be realized; it is to be hoped, in the interest of the country at large, that there will be no personal, no racial question, because matters of vital interest will be at stake. The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River told us this afternoon that his children speak French. I must tell him that, in my own province children of Frenchspeaking parents speak English as well as French; in several of our schools, children are taught to sing in English "The Maple Leaf forever".
In concluding, I repeat it is most desirable that the wish for a better understanding uttered on all sides should materialize. Let us not only preach, but also practise the fine maxims which our friends have given expression to in this connection; and, since we now belong to the League of Nations, let us first practise at home the virtues of charity, of good cheer and helpfulness. Then our representatives at the League of Nations, Mr. Speaker, will be in a position to preach the brotherhood of nations.


Mr. E. B. RYCKMAN (East Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, I humbly bespeak your kind indulgence and that of hon. members on this my first attempt to address the House. I desire, in the first place, to associate myself with the many happy and hearty felicitations which have flowed to you, in a full tide, from all parts of the Chamber. I have had, as you may not be aware, Sir, opportunities of knowing the high standard of man-in point of ability, experience, dignity and renown-that we have in the present occupant of the Chair of this House. I think, however, Mr. Speaker, there is one fact, and a most important one, that has not yet been offered to the House, and which should have been mentioned in connection with your elevation to the high position that you occupy. If is a great satisfaction to us to know that we have occupying the Chair a man of dignity and of Parliamentary lore, one who will justly decide in all matters that come up for decision as between opposing parties in this House; but we have here the largest legislative chamber of the land, filled from time to time with distinguished men, and fair women who are visitors to it, and to me-I say it earnestly-it is a great source of gratification that we have presiding over our deliberations the handsomest and the most imposing figure in this whole House.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Where is Tommy Church?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I did not intend to take any part in this debate, I had thought that the untutored children of the House should be seen and for the most part not heard; but it seems, from what has fallen from other speakers, that there is a necessity which impels me to make a few remarks and I promise hon. members that I shall not detain them long.
In the subjects which have been adumbrated in the Speech from the Throne there are a number of matters which are to come up for deliberation and decision later on. The only criticism that I have to make in that connection is that in the Speech there was very little that was explicit, and in the speeches that we have heard from members of the Government or their followers there has not been any attempt to give us any more information, if I except one speech which was made by a certain hon. and learned member. I do not know, Sir, that any votes are changed by what may take place in the debate on the Address; I do not know that any opinions

The Address
are altered. I do know, however, that the meeting of Parliament is a costly business, and I do know that when the clocks of this Chamber, and there are three of them, are ticking out the seconds of time they are also ticking in measures of dollars and cents. And if I may be permitted to offer an observation I would say that I think the factor of expense in connection with this House may be taken as three; when we consider that there are three clocks in the Chamber and all through ink bottles, mucilage pots and other requisites supplied to members, I observe the factor of three. I do not know that anyone can say that I am especially niggardly; I do not know that anyone will suggest that I want to practise an economy that I would not ask any one else to practise; but it does seem to me, as an observation that perhaps may not be lost sight of, that it would be well now when we have this new, clean, economical Government in power that there shall be an effort made to practise that economy which must be generally observed throughout the country. I intend, therefore, to trespass as little as I can upon the time and add as little as I can to the expense of this House.
I have been greatly interested in the illuminating and interesting addresses that we have heard from all quarters of the Chamber. One hon. member made a remark which seemed to strike me as appropriate- that seeing so many of us were here as strangers we should declare our environment, because a man, whether he will or not, is largely controlled by the environment in which he finds himself. Well, Mr. Speaker, I come from the little heard cf and much admired city of Toronto. Let me say that I am proud to be a representative of that city. I am proud that we have one united band from Toronto. In that respect we are on all fours with the province of Quebec; and as the representation of the province of Quebec in this Parliament, under the British North America Act, is limited to sixty-five members and as we from the growing city of Toronto are nine and soon to become, I hope, ninety-nine, it will not be long before the province of Quebec and the city of Toronto in their respective units will go hand in hand. I represent in particular the constituency of East Toronto. It is a constituency of about 50,000 voters and contains 200 manufacturing establishments more or less and of more or less importance. As I say we are a happy band of nine. I might say-since his name has been mentioned since I have risen
to my feet-that the Dean of our Brotherhood is the member for North Toronto, ex-Mayor Thomas Church, or as he is more familiarly known, Tommy Church. Some members of the House have been pleased to cast some aspersions upon him but just let me say this, and say it as quickly as I can: I have not been particularly associated with him but I know of him and I know what he has done for the city of Toronto. I know that he has been elected mayor seven times; I know that his majority on the last occasion was practically as great as he ever had before and would have been greater if it had not been for the fact that everybody knew he would be elected. I know that the reason he was held in such high esteem by his fellow citizens of Toronto was two-fold: first, that the man was absolutely honest, and second that he had nQ other idea than service. In the next place, let me tell hon. gentlemen that he retired, I suppose, because he got tired of the position, and for no other reason. He could have Ibeen elected seven times more, for the reasons I have stated1. That is one instance. Then there is another incident- and I know this for a fact; I put it to my hon. friends from the city of Montreal, who know something about the cost of elections, and I can say something myself upon that point. Before one of these elections a man approached the member for North Toronto and offered him $500 towards his election expenses, a perfectly proper transaction under the circumstances. I had nothing to do with it, and I am not seeking to justify anything in which this gentleman was concerned. He said to this man, "Never mind, old man, keep your money, I do not want it."' We have the further fact, Toronto did its duty in sending soldiers to the front. Never did a body of soldiers leave Toronto without the "Godspeed" of the member for North Toronto. There never was a train load of soldiers in health, maimed or wounded who returned to Toronto, no matter what hour of the day cr night, who were not greeted by the Mayor of Toronto. Now, when I find an hon. gentleman who says there is no infamy in offering himself as the candidate of a party which has professed before all the world, and pledged itself to carry out, a certain line of policy, the exact opposite of the policy to which the hon. gentleman is pledged, and to which he pledged himself anew last night, throwing stones at the hon. member for North Toronto, I say, Mr. Speaker, let him gather
The Address

his sticks and stones and continue to throw them.
I believe in a protective tariff. I am a man of good faith. I desire nothing but what is in the interests of this country, and I am satisfied that the people whom I represent desire nothing but what may be for the good of all. Strongly as I desire a customs tariff, I am just as strongly opposed to any privileged class. I believe that the tariff which this country has had benefits the farmer, the merchant and the manufacturer, and I can only say, Mr. Speaker, in reference to that immense sum of seventeen hundred million dbllars, or more than one-half the total indebtedness of this Canada, of excess purchases abroad in the last five years, if the manufacturers, the merchants and the farmers had saved of that sum what they could for the benefit of Canada, we would not have found so great a state of depression as we have now, nor such untoward circumstances among the farmers, and the manufacturers of this country. I do not intend to argue this case now.
The matter of exchange troubles me very, very much. To be sure, it is not now at about 20 per cent, as it once stood. I believe, however, it is on the upward swing again and that it is in the interests of all parties in this House, especially of my hon. friends the Progressives, that this should not be so. What in the world would happen to the value of the Canadian dollar, in which we naturally feel immense pride, if the purchases that are made now outside of this country were increased to a very substantial amount?
I have an easy way, although I will admit that it is not an absolute and conclusive way, of testing this question of tariff for myself. All the nations of the world that have any pretence whatever to commercial status have a protective tariff. Not one single commercial nation of importance on earth has anything else but a customs tariff. Many of those nations have a tariff that is higher than ours. Many of those nations since the war, in order to benefit themselves, and build up, as they in their wisdom think, their national prosperity, have increased their tariffs, and the only place that I know of where there is any body of opinion that is against the maintenance of a customs tariff is in a section of the United States and of Canada. I cannot believe, for one moment, that all the world is wrong, and that this body of opinion is right. It is

the safest course when you are in doubt

and I believe many of my hon. friends are in doubt-to do as others do. I admit it is not absolutely conclusive, but I cannot help thinking of something that occurred here a few years ago. There was a case before the Supreme Court of Canada. Sir Henry Strong, a man of marked peculiarities, but yet a most eminent jurist, was the presiding judge. Opposing counsel was arguing a branch of his case, when he was interrupted by the Chief Justice who said " Stop a moment, stop a moment, Mr. T" - who is living to-day - "Don't pursue that branch of your argument further. Your argument must be unsound, Mr. T. If I had a mind that wanted to think that way, I would not let it do so, because the Law Lords in England have unanimously decided the other way." Before my hon. friends the Progressives impose upon this House their will as to free trade or as to a low tariff, I want to ask this House, what nation upon this globe has a tariff such as they propose?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Great Britain has.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I venture to say to my hon. friend from Marquette that I was in Great Britain last year when the new law was adopted. It came into force on Saturday, October 1, last. What does that act provide? That act puts a duty of 331 per cent on every article that is in the schedules to the act. My hon. friend from Marquette will find the Ford automobile, that is used by the farmers throughout the West, upon the tariff list. I want to tell my hon. friend that there are, as I understand it, over 6,000 articles of commerce in the schedule of that act which are subject to a tax of 831 per cent. Nay, more, Mr. Speaker, Great Britain has always been held up as a free trade country, and peculiarly a country which could enjoy free trade. Why? Because she wanted to bear the commerce of the world to and from all ports of the world, but she now has a protective tariff and there is the readiest way in Great Britain of getting your goods subject to the tariff of 33J per cent. You simply make out your case before the Board of Trade and you are given that protection. I should be sorry, Mr. Speaker, to see this Canada of ours robbed of that protection which I know all other nations of the world demand for their subjects. And so long as that great and economically wise nation to the south of us sells its goods to the patriotic sons

The Address
of this country, and says to them:	"Your
goods shall not pass our border unless you pay tribute to us"; so long as their tariff is maintained against us and our Motherland-we ought to say to them that we shall mete out to them the same measure as they mete out to us. I want to make it clear that I and those I represent will stand strongly for a countervailing customs tariff for our own protection. One hon. member has mentioned "horse sense". Well, that is my "horse sense"-and my patriotic sense as well, in regard to this question.
I believe in upholding the dignity of this country. Canada may be comparatively small now, but .the time will not be long before we shall take our place economically amongst the great nations of the world. But we shall never do that by means of a free trade policy; we 'can do it only by maintaining our self-respect in matters commercial and in those that touch the welfare of the country. I am willing to do everything in my power to ameliorate the conditions of any class of the community; and let no one doubt my word when I say that the farmers have my special consideration. If it is a question of freight rates, I am with them all the way; but if it is a matter of doing something which is not for the benefit of all, then I invoke the very words that they have used themselves, when they have declared that they want nothing which is in the nature of special privileges. The present conditions are peculiar; there is no doubt about that. But are my hon. friends the Progressives and their constituents suffering alone? Is there no one else who is suffering? Is there no other class that is weighed down by misfortune at the present time? Mr. Speaker, I am strongly of opinion, and I take it from what my hon. friends themselves have said, that if their conditions, untoward as they are, are carefully weighed and the balance struck it will be found that, on this day of grace on which I am attempting to address this House, the conditions of the manufacturers of the country are worse than those of the farmers. I do not expect any enthusiastic reception of that statement, but I may state the situation nevertheless. The member for Swift Current (Mr. Lewis) spoke on this subject in a very illuminating way; he said that the conditions were bad in the extreme. He instanced a case which I commend to the whole House. He told us that he knew of one man, whom I understood to be a friend of his, a farmer, who, on a capital investment of $140,000 had lost $21,000 in two
years, and he gave that to this honourable House as the evidence of the "appalling" conditions in which the farmers were placed. I can tell him of manufacturers who, with a capital investment relative to that amount, have lost amazingly more; and there are those manufacturers who if they found that the measure of their loss was $21,000 on $140,000 in two years, without interest on their money and nothing for their labour, would to-morrow declare a national holiday of thanksgiving because their loss was so small.


Mr. McCONICA:: Are not your friends the manufacturers now protected by a tariff?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I would say that the majority of them are; and please God, in view of the information that was given to this House by the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin), they are going to be protected. And the farmers are going to be protected; and the duties that are now levied not only on the goods that the farmers need, but on the goods that they sell, will, I trust, be maintained.


An hon. MEMBER:: How will you protect the farmer?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: How are you going to protect the farmer? My answer is that the farmer's condition-I will not put it any stronger-is no worse than that of any other class. I believe that the condition of the farmer will be made better by such a tariff as has been suggested to us by the Minister of Justice, the Laurier-Field-ing tariff. That is my view, I hold it sincerely, and I am prepared to give reasons for it. However, I do not wish to debate this particular question. We shall have abundant time before the session is over to go into all the details bearing upon it. If the hardships which my hon. friends complain of were peculiar to themselves, that might be a consideration that would call for immediate redress. But that is not the case. The general manager of one of our well known banks has said that if any manufacturer gave him a financial statement for the year 1921 showing that he had made a profit, that was the statement he would scrutinize, because he believed to begin with, that such a statement could not be true. There are therefore, Mr. Speaker, others who are in the same deplorable position in which the Progressives and their constituents find themselves. And is it not natural? Is there any other country in the world where the condition
The Address

of the farmers is any better than it is in
Canada?
I spent four months last year in England and Scotland and hon. members may be interested to learn that some of the farmers there were declaring they would not raise any more grain crops because of the then state of the market-which was worse, I believe, than it is now-they could not afford to do so. Do not let our farmers, whose condition I sincerely deplore, remain under the impression that the deflation in the prices of farm products is pinching them alone.
The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) said: Find the farmers prosperous and you find the manufacturers, the merchants, and all other classes in the community prosperous. I am not disposed to dissent from that statement, but I am not sure, to put it no stronger, that the hon. member has got the various classes in their right economic order. The prairie farmers might find their fields "whitening unto the harvest," our friends in Prince Edward Island might find their potato hills bursting with a bountiful crop, but unless there was the market provided by the merchants, the manufacturers, and the professional men of the country to pay for that abundant harvest, I submit we would have hard times. I can assure the House beyond a question of doubt that when certain manufacturers, whose cost systems told them the truth, were aware that every single day their wheels turned they were making a loss, they kept their men on that they and their families might be supplied with bread, for those manufacturers were determined that the depressing line of the unemployed, so fearful to see, should not be lengthened if they could help it.
The hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) remarked on what part of the customs tariff levied on imports
9 p.m. reached the treasury and was available to meet our national expenditure. I am informed, Mr. Speaker, that one hon. member of the Progressive party, a clergyman, in addressing audiences throughout his riding specially emphasized the fact that one-half of all the money received in customs duties was absorbed in the expense of collection. That . statement, of course, was very effective.
I heard that another hon. member addressed his constituents to the same effect. Thus we know of at least three hon. members, each in different provinces, making this mischievous statement. I do not suggest for a moment that they knew it was 
utterly untrue, but the damage was done. But I am satisfied that this pernicious statement with a loading of about nine hundred and fifty per cent above the facts, went broadcast throughout the country. When it was made in the House I knew it was incorrect, and I thought it would be challenged, but there it appears on the pages of Hansard, and if those pages come into the hands of any one who does not see the contradiction, because it was not made until a couple of days later, the damage will be still greater. Therefore, I submit for the consideration of my Progressive friends that wherever that statement has been made, wherever it has done its deadly work-and I do not wish to use too hard an expression-it is in the interests of good government that it should be forever killed.
I have enjoyed this debate exceedingly, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to claim any undue merit for my regular attendance, but I have been in my seat during the greater part of the debate. What has fallen from the lips of hon. members has always been illuminating, informative, or entertaining. I find satisfaction in disagreeing with some speakers. 1 find satisfaction in agreeing with others. But one hon. member gave me the greatest satisfaction, although he whs also the dispenser of keen disappointment and distress. I will explain what I mean. I did not return from abroad until October and had no intention of participating in the election campaign, but later on I was asked, under special circumstances, to accept the Conservative nomination for the constituency which I have the honour now to represent. When the platform that had been propounded by the Liberal party, accompanied by the pledge to put it into effect at the earliest opportunity, was read at my nomination meeting, a contra-statement was made that that platform would give place to the Laurier-Fielding tariff. I could not believe that at the time, because I relied upon the honourable men who had pledged their word to put this platform into effect as the platform of the Liberal party if returned to power. During the campaign I asked a well-known manufacturer for the privilege of addressing his employees during the noon hour. He replied, "I am not going to allow you to address them, and, furthermore I am not going to vote for you. You think you are going to have this tariff that is given us in the Liberal platform. Well, I have just returned from Montreal, and I may tell you we are not

The Address
going to have anything of the kind." If necessary I can give the name of that manufacturer, and as I had a witness with me I can substantiate the statement made. Although that manufacturer said: "We are going to have the Laurier-Fielding tariff," still in my ignorance and confidence I continued during my campaign to discuss the respective tariff platforms of the Can-servative, Liberal, and Progressive parties. I heard it constantly stated during the campaign: "Do not concern yourself about the Liberal tariff policy; you will not be troubled about it if the Liberals are the largest group returned and have the making of the tariff." I came to this House, therefore, in some doubt as to what was going to happen, particularly in view of the solemn declaration of the Liberal convention, accompanied by a pledge to put that declaration into effect. I observed my honoured le-ader wrap up the Liberal party in their platform and their pledge as in a shroud and hand it to the undertaker. Surely, I thought, this is mistaken tactics. You are defying the Liberal party to put their platform into effect. You are reading what has been said in the province of Quebec. You are giving the stand1 that has been taken by some members of the party with regard to the fiscal policy of the country, and you are defying them to carry out their pledges. I thought that was a mistake. I said in my own mind: Why not let them escape from their platform and their pledge if they want to do so, because if they did fail to carry out their promise it would be in the interests of the country? Why not let them? Why gird at them so that they will carry it into effect? Mr. Speaker, I believe that the putting into effect of that platform as the policy of this country would bring about the crisis to which my right bon. leader referred as well as the crisis to which the Minister of Justice referred. I do not think, however, that such a deplorable crisis would bring about just the results pictured by the Minister of Justice.
Following the speech of my leader, I listened to the hon. First Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). He made use of his little simile, and he told us that we should not take campaign pledges seriously-which was new light for me. He also said that he had stated his intention of surrounding himself with leading members of the party and of accepting their advice as to what he should do with regard to carrying out the Liberal platform. He read the speech that
he made during the Liberal convention after that platform had been laid down, and he had been chosen as leader of the Liberal party. I ask hon. members to refer to page 49 of Hansard, where the Prime Minister quotes the speech he made on that occasion, and ask themselves whether any high school boy or girl could attach to what he said during the course of that speech- it is found on page 199 of the proceedings of the Liberal convention-any other meaning than that which his words obviously implied,

"press on from this moment
for
greater righteousness
till we have
reached the goal where the principles and policies laid down on this historic occasion will have become, through legislation, part of the law of our land". Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. First Minister was playing with the issue,-as was the case before the 6th of December. I thought we should find out how this matter stands when the legislation is brought down, and not before; that if we were not to know where we stood in relation to the tariff until the tariff proposals were presented, we would at least know then. But to my great joy-and I cannot too much emphasize my feelings in this respect-the Minister of Justice, in his very notable speech and in language which no one could misunderstand-in terms lucid and convincing-said:	"My views
have never changed during the lest twenty-five years. For fifteen years I have followed, approved, endorsed the Laurier-Fielding tariff. I have advocated that tariff in the province of Quebec; I have advocated it in the city of Quebec. At a gathering held in that city the right hon. leader of the Opposition was present and applauded my declaration with regard to the tariff. I am in favour of the Laurier-Fielding tariff".	.
My hat was in the air, Mr. Speaker, I came to this House in some doubt and apprehension with regard to the future fiscal policy of this country. But, knowing as I do what the Laurier-Fielding tariff is,
I am no longer in uncertainty with regard to the tariff question. My hat is in the air; if I had three hats they would all be in the air, one hanging on each of the clocks in the Chamber, to emphasize the triumphant nature of my feelings upon learning that from this time forth we are to have the. Laurier-Fielding tariff as the tariff policy of this country. Do not misunderstand me;
I am not forgetting that the Minister of Justice said "with such modifications as exigencies might demand". But I rejoice

The Address

in the intimation>-and I believe this country rejoices in it-that we are to have the Laurier-Fielding tariff.
What was the policy of our party in the last election? What did we say was the most important issue, the one with which we were most deeply concerned? We said that a proper tariff policy was essential to the well-being of the nation; that we should have such a customs tariff as we have had. Regardless of varying political conditions I say that the principle of the tariffs we have had from 1896 up to the present time is satisfactory to the party which I have the honour to support in this House.
Then who won the election in that event? What policy prevailed? Was it the policy of the Liberal party propounded in convention after the deliberations of the thousand or more who, I am told, were gathered there? No, Mr. Speaker, it was the policy demanded by the people of this country that we must have in this Canada of ours, for the benefit of farmers, merchants, manufacturers, the professional classes and of all who enjoy the privilege of living in this country, a protective tariff. That question reminds me of that other one, who won the war? In the United States -and I have had a very considerable amount of business with the United States government in the last three years-it is claimed openly by executive officers that the war was won by that nation which, as a matter of fact, after having propounded and put into effect a policy of neutrality, delayed for over two years until April, 1917, before coming into the war. Yet they say that they won the war. Well, let them claim that, and let any party which announced that it was in favour of the Laurier-Fielding tariff, and that it would put it into effect, claim that it won the election, but, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the election was won by those people throughout the country who believed, as the Conservative party did, that a protective tariff was necessary for Canada. Am I sure yet that we have the Laurier-Fielding tariff? Yes, I think I am. The Minister of Justice has said so, and he is beyond question an important member of the administration. I am also aware of what is the effect of British parliamentary .practice in a case of this kind, and that if any other members of the administration should insist now that we must have something other than the Laurier-Fielding tariff, then in accordance with parliamentary practice we must have the resignation

of the Minister of Justice. I have therefore unalloyed satisfaction in the effect of his declaration.
If some may say, " Oh, but your leader was unhorsed," I admit that, but if our leader was unhorsed, we will leave our friends of the other side to play with their broken toys and their broken pledges, because we on this side had a definite policy Which we believed would make for the prosperity of this country.
I was greatly disappointed with another part of the remarks of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice. In my opinion he has been the first in this Parliament to set province against province. His speech is about five-and-a-half columns long in Hansard; I have read it very, very carefully, and nobody can tell me after reading that speech that it was prepared with any other-idea in view than the winging of the two arrows which are launched in its last paragraphs. My hon. friend, in solemn tones of injured innocence, appealed to this House. He said that there had been a crisis, that he had not said any more than the right hon. leader of the Opposition had said, that his aim was to serve the country, that the crisis had been averted by the return of the Liberal party to power, that we should recognize that, and that we had an opportunity to learn now that we were in opposition. Then comes the statement that the attitude taken by my right hon. leader was inspired by bitterness against the province of Quebec. Now I submit to the members of this House that there was not one line, one word, or one syllable, uttered by my right hon. leader that was charged in any degree with bitterness against the province of Quebec. Then, in his next paragraph, the Minister of Justice refers to the allegation that he was the master of this administration, and after supporting that allegation by making a statement as to the tariff policy of this country-that declaration did not come from the First Minister, from whom it might very properly have come, nor from the Minister of Finance, in whose department it was, but from the Minister of Justice-he says that my right hon. leader desired "to accentuate the unfortunate differences which have existed between certain provinces."
Mr. Speaker, this is an old, old game, and a wretched game it is. I do not believe that the Minister of Justice desired to set any such ball rolling, because, wljile he may have done what was done with intention, I do not believe he had any idea that what he said would be taken in the way

The Address
it has been, or that it would have the results that have flowed from it. What do we find? The word the Minister of Justice used was "bitterness." That is immediately translated into "hatred" by the newspapers, but I shall refer to that later on. Out of a clear sky, without any provocation whatever, we have the allegation that province is being set against province, and that it is the desire of the leader of an important party in this House to accentuate the differences that exist between the provinces. I say that it is an old, old game. The kick-off was with the Minister of Justice. Then the ball was passed to the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald). What did he say? He said, "Beneath the surface there is an indication of a desire on the part of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition to resuscitate the old sectional feeling," and the matter is enlarged upon there. I submit that my hon. friend had no justification for including that in his remarks. It was wholly amongst the disjecta membra of his address, and he might just as well, and I say it with all respect, have said, "Hon. members, onions do not agree with my digestion," but from a full heart, anxious to keep the ball rolling, he says, "Beneath the surface"-and all things that are beneath the surface are not above board and honourable-"beneath the surface there is an indication of a desire on the part of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition to resuscitate the old sectional feeling."
Why is this matter introduced into this debate? Why does it come from the Government side? Why is it impressed upon us, why does it become important and why has it been referred to by hon. gentlemen opposite ever since the incident in question? The member for one of the Montreal constituencies, in a perfectly frank speech- and I took pleasure in the sincerity of his remarks-referring to this matter asked: Why all this bitter hatred? I submit it is for a malign purpose-to solidify the people of the province of Quebec against my right hon. leader. It has a pernicious effect, it is wholly undesirable, there is no occasion for it and how is expression to be given to the much desired spirit of unity after such an unwarranted attack? How did this movement begin? One of the newspapers translated the incident: "Hatred of Quebec inspires Meig'hen's attack, Sir Lomer says." This appeared with different transpositions in	different newspapers,	but
conveying the same meaning.	Sir
19J
Loimer Goum, a taost important figure, in the province of Quebec, is now the Minister of Justice. All honour and respect to him; he has attained his high position through the good will of his countrymen. But what do we find? An attack is made by him which is translated and given cur. rency in the province of Quebec the result of which can only be construed-if they take the Minister of Justice at his word and the public of Quebec do that-as an attack made upon my leader. Now, Mr. Speaker, to say there has been such an attack is most unjust. Let me put the matter this way: Suppose the situation were reversed, that an unsupported and unjustified attack had been made by Sir Lomer Gouin upon the leader of the Opposition, and that tha story came out in the newspapers of Ontario headed " Hatred of Ontario inspires Sir Lomer Gouin's attack, the right hon. Arthur Meighen says." What would have been the effect throughout Ontario? Would such a procedure as that tend to develop amity and good will? Would it tend to enlarge the esteem in which the Minister of Justice is at present held in the province of Ontario? I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it would not. I want to see-and this is my humble contribution to the debate- banished once and for all from this House, and banished from the newspapers that report the proceedings of this House, this serpent of discord and all its slimy trails.
I will tell you something, Mr. Speaker, with all the earnestness that I can command:	The members of this hon. House
should decide that any imputation against a province, or any imputation against the members of a province as a whole, should be forever forbidden and never allowed to occur. Sir, I was born in the province of Quebec. My mother was born in that province, I have lived there myself and an important section of my family still lives in Quebec and enjoys the blessings which obtain there. I have important interests in that province, and there is no blessing that could come to Quebec that I would for . one moment withhold. If you will allow me a personal allusion I can never forget the feeling akin to worship which enters my soul when I am in the presence of the mighty St. Lawrence. Such is the spirit which seems to breathe over all its waters that I can well understand how the ancients worshipped their river gods. I regard the province of Quebec with all affection and would deny it no reasonable demand. I moved to the city of Toronto and have lived there for nearly thirty-five years. I know
The Address

the fair-mindedness of its people. I know there is no section which would seek to deny the province of Quebec anything it is entitled to. There might be a few persons of altered mentality who might desire to say something derogatory of the province of Quebec or of any other province but there is no section of the community in which I live, or of the province of Ontario as I know it, that would for one moment withhold from the province of Quebec anything that it is entitled to. On the other hand, I believe there is no important section of public opinion in the province of Quebec that would withhold from the province, of Ontario what it is entitled to.
But what do we find? We come to Ottawa and at first we find everything agreeable but before long within the precincts of this House we hear enunciated this idea of hatred. Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of members of this House, if they wish to serve the cause of their common Canadian patriotism, to see that an end is put to that kind of thing. As far as my race is concerned I am five generations Canadian. As regards my religion I will admit that I ought to have more of it but I am of a different creed from that declared by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) this afternoon. If there are policies or principles or individuals to be attacked here let them be attacked and if they cannot defend themselves or give as good as they receive, let them suffer the consequences but surely attacks should not_ be made upon any part of tKe common patriotism of this country. Sir Wilfrid Laurier declared that love is better than hate. He sat for years in this House and knew the spirit that at times invaded it and in these words he has left his condemnation of that very spirit. I am willing to co-operate with other members of the House in doing my level best to see that the spirit complained of shall be forever exorcised.
There are rules of the House which are in the interest of decorum and the maintenance of the amenities of debate which require that no aspersion shall be cast by one member upon his fellow inembers. If a member offends in this particular, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we put him in a room by himself. This is merely an idea that I have in my own heart, and I say that no member should be permitted to speak disrespectfully of any province, or the people of any province as a whole. I submit if there was some amendment to the Rules of the House carrying into effect that idea, the legislation of this Fourteenth

parliament would advance the interests of this country beyond anything that we now imagine.
As far as I am concerned, let me say that I have no other interest than that of my country, Canada. My constituency is East Toronto. I know that it is a legal fiction that when a member is elected for a constituency he becomes, ipso facto, a representative of the whole country, and that he is not allowed to advance something which means the benefit of his own constituency or his own province, if it does not run on all fours with the betterment of the whole country. With that feeling, I want to say that I intend to attend the sessions of this House. I have no other occupation at the present time, and no business that calls me specially away from here prevents me giving my full attention to the sessions of this House. If any member of the House thinks that I, in my humble capacity, can do anything to advance the interests of any portion of this Dominion, or to improve the condition of the people of any part of Canada, I say right now as emphatically as I can, that I am at the service of that hon. gentleman. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this unity, this prosperity which we are sure Canada is entitled to, and which the future will give it, can only be obtained if we, once and for all, really strive to become a united band, with no other object than the advancement of our country.


Mr. E. J. SEXSMITH (Lennox and Addington) :: I wish, Mr. Speaker, to join with hon. gentleman in extending to you my sincere congratulations. I am not quite satisfied in my own mind as to the advisability of continuing this present discussion. I have been educated and entertained, and I might say that conscientious and constructive discussion may have a place yet in these proceedings. We are told that in a multitude of councillors there is safety. As one just undertaking the responsibilities of a member of this House, I do not intend to delay the proceedings by a long-drawn out speech. I desire, in a very humble way, to summarize some of the principal thoughts that have been expressed in relation to the Speech from the Throne. One hon. gentleman on this side of the House said that it was wise for us to consider the statements that were made in Parliament because they went out through the country. I believe he was right in the declaration, but the thought came to my mind: was it not just as important that this Parliament should

The Address
consider some of the statements that have been made and sent here from the country? I desire to state frankly that this Government is starting under very difficult circumstances, and an economic recovery cannot be brought about in a day, but it is my conviction that the Government will attain its objective, namely, the restoration of the political, economical and social life of Canada to a state of normality. What are some of the statements that come from the people of Canada to this Parliament? The people of Canada very emphatically stated on the 6th of December last that they wanted a change of government.


Mr. McMASTER:: Hear, hear.


Edward James Sexsmith: I do not believe in abusing the retiring government. I do not think that we get anywhere by abusing one another. Very definite statements have been made, that there was to be a revision of the tariff, that the railways should be owned and managed by the government, that the natural resources of the Dominion should be developed, and that constructive economy be practised in the administration of the country's affairs. Something has been said about unemployment. I will admit that the condition is very, very serious. But it is serious in the respect that it is an indication of a defect in administration. When these symptoms arise in Canada, it is time for statesmen and for everybody to begin and diagnose the case. Sir, I say that, while there have been worldwide conditions brought about by the Great War, and while there has been reaction resulting in pessimism, deflation in prices and so on, we believe that the national policy has outlived its day of intended usefulness. We are of the opinion that its continuance in force has been the underlying cause of Canada's present condition. We sometimes spend a good deal of time in swatting the fly, on account of the contagion that his little feet carry, forgetting to clean up the cesspools and the slough ponds that are the source of the trouble. We want revenue; of course we do. We lave a debt to pay. But a policy that brings in revenue and places a small percentage in the national treasury, allowing the major portion to find its way into the pockets of individuals, is destructive. The present high tariff is destroying the equilibrium of the nation, economically, financially and industrially. One of the main essentials of good statesmanship is the ability to strike and maintain a true balance in national affairs, but we believe that the present system is
submersive of the best interests of the country as a whole. What is the solution? It is to be found in a change of policy.
Something has been said about agriculture, and reference was made to the subject in the Speech from the Throne, in a faint, though judicious, way. I am sorry that the Progressive party is sometimes misunderstood. There seems to be a misunderstanding between the people of the rural districts and those of the -urban centres, not so much in the West, perhaps, as in the East and in Central Canada; but we trust that the day is not far distant when that misunderstanding will have disappeared. We do know that between the urban interest and the rural interest there is an interdependence; we know that those interests are positively inseparable; and we are also aware that a country must take care of its manufacturing interests. But there is another outstanding truth to be considered, and that is, that no nation that is over-industrialized is in a very normal condition. The greatest source of wealth to a nation lies in the fertility of its soil, and it matters not who tills that soil. If I understood the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) correctly, he said in his speech that the basic industry of Canada was agriculture. That being so, and statesmen having acknowledged the fact from time to time, we feel that agriculture should be encouraged, not, of course, in a selfish, narrow way, but having regard to its relation to other fundamental principles. Much has been said, by men who have pioneered the West and . who have laboured in this industry, as regards what should be done by governments. In summing up these opinions, we find that they want markets that are unbarred, they want economic transportation, and they want just remuneration, untampered with. Now, I believe that this Government will see to it that the agricultural industry receives fair treatment.
There is the problem of railways, and I do not think that the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) is to be envied. Indeed, I think it will devolve upon this House to assist him as best it can. This subject will be discussed by men who are eligible to deal with it. It pleases me to hear men, who have the ability and the experience, confining their remarks to this one particular question. We find that the railway freight rates are almost prohibiting transportation. In my own province it costs $500 to remove one hundred cords of
The Address

wood to a point about eighty miles distant from our county town. Under weak management the railways have perforce fallen into the possession of the Government. If there was anything on this earth that could die twice, I might say that we have been tariffed to death's door and have been railroaded nearly to the grave. There are two prominent factors in successful railway management-honest, competent direction, and the production of the natural resources of the country. I might place in the same category the three paramount problems, the railway problem, the immigration problem, and the problem of developing Canada's natural resources. These matters go together. Now, I do not wish to take up more time, because I do not feel that I have the ability to deal with these questions as they should be dealt with. But it is very necessary that something should be done, and we believe that it will be done.
I should like to say something in regard to the Soldiers' Settlement Board, which has been referred to rather cautiously. I believe that it is in the mind of the Government to do something more for our returned soldiers. Of course, much has been done; but we think that there could hardly be a limit to what Canada should do for those of her sons who fought her battle. Canada cannot afford to forget her returned heroes.
In conclusion, let me say that there are fundamental principles for us to consider. One has been mentioned by a number of hon. gentlemen, namely, unity; but I think that one of the main principles that should govern administration is unselfishness. When personal selfishness enters into the hearts of hon. members to whom the country entrusts the administration of its affairs, such selfishness is not only out of place, but is very destructive. Especially in all our deliberations I believe that we should be careful not to be biassed by racial or party prejudice, for it is only by maintaining a cool, dispassionate judgment that we can best advance the true interests of this great Dominion.


Mr. CHARLES SHEARD (South Toronto) :: I did not intend, Mr. Speaker, to participate in this debate, but as several important points have been raised, and as some hon. members at least have expressed themselves as though inspired by rather a jealous feeling against my native city, I feel it incumbent upon me to address the House.

In the first place, Sir, I would crave the privilege of joining with those who have preceded me in conveying to you my most hearty congratulations on your election to the high position which this House has conferred upon you. I do that with all the more satisfaction because I recall that when I entered Parliament you were one of the first to extend to me that courtesy, friendliness and companionship which a new member very often so earnestly and keenly desires. Moreover, in view of all that has been said regarding the solid Liberal representation from the province of Quebec, I, as a Canadian, cannot be restrained from expressing my admiration at the rising to the position of First Commoner of this country of a Canadian from the old French province of Quebec who has been signally honoured by the great Republic of France in being permitted to wear in the lapel of his coat that, to a Frenchman, very cherished decoration of the Legion of Honour. I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will pardon me this personal reference. I speak it because I am more than ordinarily sincere and earnest in conveying to you my keen appreciation of your election.
Regarding the Speech from the Throne, which is the subject matter of this debate, it raises to my mind only three important points: First, the railways, next, the tariff, and, third, immigration. True, the Speech from the Throne makes reference to the recent election,-to the restoration of good times, so suddenly identified, which have come, according to the hon. leader of the Government (Mr. Mackenzie King) in response to the vindication of the principle that the people rule, while the old government, so full of wrong doing, has been thrown out, with the result that better times have dawned, like the rising sun on a new day, to warm and cheer every corner of this vast Dominion.
Now, when we commence to analyze the situation we need not be at all surprised. I for one was not in the least surprised at the result of the election. We but shared the fate that overtook practically every government of every other country that participated in the war. Our defeat was a natural consequence and a natural condition of the war. Would any man imagine for one moment that any government that had to undertake, with the energy, the force, and the perseverance which the Union Government and, later, the Meighen Government had to pursue, to tax the people, to raise enormous revenues, to restrict them in their liberties, to confiscate

The Address
their property, to compel in some instances enlistment and service for the defence of the Empire and civilization,-would any man imagine, I say, that that government was going to be popular with men who did not share the views of the great bulk of Canadians, and that those men were going to submit without venting their animosity upon what they conceived to be the authors of oppressive measures against themselves? People as a rule do not like to be taxed, when they are taxed they complain, and if they are taxed inordinately they rebel; which is exactly what has resulted in the defeat and overthrow of the Meighen Government. It has not been due to the lack of policy, to any wrong doing; it has simply been the natural and consequential result of the people objecting to pay the bill when the account is rendered. It is exactly the same as some people treat their doctor. They will call him out at night, they will plead on all fours for him to come speedily and often to their homes -"Don't neglect to call when you pass the door,"-but when he renders his account they will hardly know him as they pass him by on the street.
The political entity is practically the same as the individual, and I may tell hon. members of the Government that a day of reckoning will surely follow. They may take to themselves to-day the great consolation of having achieved victory. Well, I do not envy them their victory. It will be their privilege, their duty, their necessity to impose similar and even greater taxes, and to collect them, the burden is going to be grievously heavy, and the revulsion of feeling will speedily follow. When the tax collector comes for payment, the people will say, "Why this Government is no better than the other; we will have another change and see how it works."
Let us without bigotry approach and analyze the situation as far as we can. We have to-day a Government in power which has not the support of a majority of the members of this House. When the Government look across the floor and see ranged upon this side the Progressives and the old despised Tories, as they would feign make out we are, they must sometimes wonder as they go home at night how long the game is going to last and when the end will come. I hope they will have what the lion. Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) promised to give the national railways-a fair trial. It would be the greatest possible misfortune to let them out of the hole they are in until they
have had a fair trial so the country will be able to pass judgment upon their acts. I for my part am not going to try to upset the Government,-just yet. I want to wait and see what they are going to do.
We have on this side a bunch of farmers. I remember when they started, I was in this House in the old time when we had the Union party and the Liberal party. Why, many of us who now sit in different places used to go to the same caucus,-the hon. member for Marquette was a member of the government then. Well, we had one or two hon. gentlemen who did not like their environment. They were very uncomfortable; they never loosened up as we felt they should; they were not as friendly as we thought they might be. They manifested a sort of narrow contractedness which did not come from us, and they began to edge off sideways. They did not know what they were, but they called themselves Farmers because most of them came from the West. In those days the hon. member who sat for the constituency of Red Deer, Mr. Michael Clark, was foremost in the expression of independent thought, although that independent thought did not, in most cases, appear to lead anywhere. But I believe he was at that time the right bower, if I may say so

the chief henchman-of the leader of the Progressive party, the hon. member for Marquette. The then member for Red Deer said: Well, as a name, "Farmer" will not do; " Agrarian " will not do, for it means the same thing if it means anything. So, if the people do not understand what Agrarian is we will call ourselves " Progressives", and it was Progressives from that day henceforth. Well, the late hon. member for Red Deer progressed to the very end. Finally he said: "There is nothing more to this. The Progressive party is simply a class; it represents nothing more than class selfishness. I cannot follow them in that line, so I will quit." And now we fail to see that distinguished and outstanding figure in this House. No longer do we hear the eloquence which had thrilled so many of us; no longer are we impressed with his whole-souled conviction of what must really be regarded as the Belial of absolute free trade.
Well, we must now designate our friends to my left as Progressives. But a rose by any other name will smell as sweet. I have listened very carefully to their addresses, and so far as I can gather it, their only text, their only idea, is the defence of the farmer. All they want is
The Address

to secure redress for the farmer; to see that he is accorded relief. They regard the farmer as the whole of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Charles Sheard: No?


Mr. CALDWELL:: Open that other eye.


Charles Sheard: I want to remind my
hon. friend in all sincerity that there are other things in Canada besides farm labour and farm work.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Toronto, for instance.


Charles Sheard: Oh, you may sneer at Toronto if you like, but Toronto and Torontonians, I may tell my hon. friend, have just as much right to existence, despite his intimation to the contrary, as have the members from the Prairie provinces. And they too may need some things in order to enable them to enjoy independent life and to contribute their little mite to the progress of this country.
I am willing to grant all that can be granted for the benefit of the farmer; I am desirous of doing everything that is practicable in order to assist him. I am willing to listen to his grievances, and if any suggestion can be offered which would grant a measure of relief without ruin to the rest of the country, I for one should be prepared to support it.
I was pleased and edified, Mr. Speaker, by the deliverance of the hon. member for Marquette, leader of the Farmer party, in the early stages of this debate. I will at least pay him this compliment: he said in clear and definite terms what he really meant; his words seemed to carry with them his conviction; there was no humbug or camouflage about them. That went a long way with me, and I thought that if there was anything we could reasonably give him, it should be given. But there is a good deal that we cannot give him, as I see the situation. Let us take a look first at the railway problem. We have a tremendous mileage of railway in this country-twenty thousand odd miles, the result of long-continued maladministration. It does not make a particle of difference at whose door we lay the blame; the fact remains that we have a number of railways that have never paid, that are out of repair, and that cannot be operated without enormously increased expenditure for equipment and improvement of roadbed. I believe as firmly as any one in the nationalization of the railways and will go as far as I can toward carrying it into practical 
effect. I am with my hon. friends the Progressives heart and hand in the determination to hold what we have or what has been left for us to redeem in the pawnshop of the country. One hon. gentleman, speaking the other day, referred to the railway system as a miserable foundling. It is. It was conceived, I was going to say, in iniquity and born in corruption; it has marasmus of the very worst kind, and whether we can afford it relief or not I do not know. We suffered in this way. Year after year the railway corporations came to this House and received large subsidies which never went into the railways at all, but found their way into the pockets of the profiteers and mandarins who were using the railways as a means of milking not only the Dominion but the provinces as well; using them through the floating of bonds and the borrowing of money upon them. And would you be surprised to hear that for their venture they received a knighthood? Truly Canadians are a long-suffering people.
Well, now, what is to be the result? For some years to come, a decade at least, we shall have to provide $100,000,000 a year to keep up, to put in repair, to equip and operate these railroads and give them a chance to live. When you bring a starved infant to a doctor you are advised that if you want the child to have a chance for life, you will have to feed it. According to our information, and I believe it is correct, that is the condition our railroads are in to-day, and we have to feed them. Take the Canadian Northern; I would ask any man who goes over that road whether he imagines that in its present state it is a going concern? Not a bit of it. It will require improvement, repair, additions, new equipment, and so on. I venture the guess that we will have a deficit brought down close on to $100,000,000 if not more. If we are to maintain the policy of public ownership of railways we must not hesitate to face this condition; we must be prepared to meet it year after year. That is the first thing we have to think of.
In addition to that, we have to provide for the running expenses of the country. At the present time, to pay pensions and the liabilities contracted through the war, we have obligations amounting to $650,000,000 per annum. Our obligations have almost, if not entirely, doubled. The national debt of Canada steadily increased from the time of Confederation down to the beginning of the war, and it now represents a large an-

The Address
nual liability which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has to provide for in addition to other requirements. Is that a very engaging task for any hon. member when we have on this side, to my left, members clamouring for a lower tariff? Really what they are saying is: We want an abolition of the tariff, but we will be satisfied if you scale it away down. That, of course, would mean a depleted revenue from the tariff. If the Minister can meet their demands and the country's obligations I would like to see him do it. I doubt if there is a single man in this House or in this Parliament who is better qualified to speak on matters of finance than the present Minister of Finance, but I venture to tell him that it is absolutely impossible for him to meet the requirements for carrying on this country unless he maintains the revenue producing element which has entered into the policy of all governments in this country in the past. He may be able to obtain revenue by more taxes, but direct taxation is bad.
Now I come to the question of immigration, and it is a very important one. I am not one of those who are so keen to get immigrants into this country, because having lived in a large city all my life I have seen the evil results of immigration. We must hand-pick our immigrants in the future if we are going to develop. I have had a lot of trouble over this question of immigration, because I have a lot of Jews in my riding. However, to keep to the point, a man coming into this country who knows nothing about farming will make all sorts of promises to get into the country, and may say he is going on the land, but unless he has had experience in farming he ought not to be admitted as a farmer. In my judgment, we do not want immigrants who are going to infest our cities. How can we expect an inexperienced man to succeed as a farmer in the West, where, as the former member for Ped Deer used to tell us, the climate is so rigorous as to make that country a close cousin of the North Pole. He must be a sturdy immigrant to succeed in farming in our western country, and unless he is an experienced man with a great deal of energy and perseverance, after a while he will drift into the cities, walk around for some weeks looking for a job, and perhaps get work in some factory that he is not very well fitted for. All the time he runs great danger of joining the ranks of the unemployed, which means that he will have to be maintained and fed, and
that is what we in the cities particularly do not want. Let us help to keep the immigrants on the land. It is the -duty of this country and of this Government to offer every reasonable assistance to the immigrant to enabL him to stay on the land-and furnish him with the necessary opportunities that others have had who have preceded him and succeeded in farming. I would not be too keen to encourage even the artisan to come to Canada, but would rather encourage and lay the emphasis upon those who have had experience and training in the real science and practical art of agriculture.
Coming now to the question of the tariff, I am an adequate protectionist. What does that mean? It means that I am in favour of a tariff that is adequate to protect the growing industries that are springing up in this country. It is a tariff that must have the element of protection in it. One hon. gentleman to my left asked how the tariff could possibly help the farmer. Perhaps I may be permitted to answer that question. In the province of Ontario, farming is very different from what it is in the Prairie provinces, where the farmers have advantages which our Ontario farmers never had but would be delighted to have. The farmers in this province have not one-quarter of the advantages enjoyed by the farmers of the West.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Sheard: Perhaps you think I
know nothing about it. I want to tell my hon. friends that I have worked on a farm in Ontario, and when we grew wheat we had to start in and cross-plough from the spring of the year till the next fall, and then start in again and break the ground and fallow it and rest it before we could get a crop of wheat, and then only a poor one. All that meant money. I was talking to a farmer from Manitoba some time ago, probably an exceptional one, and he told me of the conditions out there. He said, " My land is exceptionally good, I grant you. I have cropped wheat from my land continuously for thirty years, I have as good a crop now as I had when I started, and I do not fertilize at all." What Ontario farmer can say that? In Ontario the farmer has to alternate his crops, and fertilize continuously, and then he cannot grow wheat as the farmers in the West do. For him protection is his only salvation. Why? Because it builds up the industrial centres in Ontario, of which Toronto is
The Address

one, and furnishes him with a home market which consumes eighty-five per cent of all he produces. The Ontario farmer has to go into truck farming. That, of course, does not appeal to the farmer on the Prairie provinces, but it is a vital thing to the farmer in Ontario, and I am inclined to agree with the hon. member from British Columbia who said the other day that tariff requirements and tariff preferences are largely a matter of geographical location. They are fundamentally that. The hon. member for Yale (Mr. MacKelvie) told us in his speech the other evening that British Columbia needed protection because it was in close competition with the adjacent states of Washington and Oregon which, in some cases, produced better fruit, and therefore they needed protection to keep that fruit out. Some gentleman said "You should not have gone there" or words to that effect. Well if we followed that argument to its conclusion we might say with equal reason that the gentlemen who went to the Prairie provinces to grow wheat should not have gone there not because it was not good to go, not because the soil was not perhaps the best wheat growing soil in the whole world; but you were too far from the market and you should not have gone so far. The same argument will hold in this case; it is a matter of geographical advantages and requirements; and in this wide Dominion, stretching as it does from the Atlantic to the Pacific we must consider the conditions. It is all very well to talk about free trade in England but the conditions in Canada and the conditions in England are not parallel for a minute. We have a country to the south of us producing precisely what we produce, they are our competitors and we, to a certain extent, are theirs, they are producing grain and foodstuffs on certain parts of their soil that	are equal to
ours. They have been manufacturing with a great deal more speed and efficiency than we have yet been able to attain and the consequence is that in many instances, in many particular branches of industry, they have exhausted their raw material and they want the Canadian material to carry on their manufacturing. If we permit them to enter they will get our raw material, they will work it up into finished products, they will supply all our large centres, and they will then say "Well, the Canadian has not enough ingenuity to work up his raw material into finished products." You may say "Oh, but we will get the advantage, we 
will get cheaper goods." Yes, you may, those of you who live on farms of 1200 or 1500 acres in extent where wheat is produced and facilities given to ship it to market; but you must realize there are a large number of workers in the centres of population who are employed and gain their living by manufacturing those things which otherwise would be made in the United States at less cost and shipped in here at a cheaper price because over there owing to smaller overhead charges for manufacturing and the enormous numbers in their home market they can produce at far less cost for the Canadian market than we can do with our comparatively small population of eight millions of people. I can take you down to the lower end of New York city and to Jersey City, and through the state of New Jersey, and I can show you factories which are turning out clothing, ladies garments and various kinds of wearing apparel, which factories would sweep Canada and flood the whole of this Dominion with their surplus stock if it were not for the regulations which prevent the importation of such goods in enormous quantities into the Dominion. The tariff helps to keep these goods out and at the same time serves the good purpose of contributing to the revenue.
Some hon. MEMBERS Oh, oh.


Charles Sheard: However that may be as [DOT]you like. The Minister of Justice, I think, has declared what his policy is; he has declared for the Laurier-Fielding tariff. That was a protective tariff and that is the tariff which we in this corner of the House are going to support. While we are with you on the railway policy, on the question of public ownership, and will assist you sill we can, we are going to stand for adequate protection, which we will maintain, no matter how you may differ from us in opinion, is necessary and essential to protect industries in the large centres of this Dominion, and we hope we will convert you to our way of thinking.
A good deal has been said about differences of policy. I was somewhat surprised to read a new definition of Liberalism which was made by the Prime Minister in an address given in this city on or about the 13th of March last to the Liberal women of Ottawa. He defined Liberalism as an attitude of mind and heart; and I was wondering if it was possible to transform or change Liberalism as it used to be into this new doctrine, and whether that was henceforth to be its condition.

The Address
Some remarks were also made by the Prime Minister as to our being Tories. The leader of the House said that he never attempted to stretch Liberalism so as to embrace Toryism. Well I beg to remind hon. members that there are worse things than Toryism.
Some hon. MEMBERS What are they?


Charles Sheard: I want to tell my hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) that if he reads history he will find that all the great efforts that have been made in this country, and a great deal of the prosperity and the progress which Canada has achieved, have been initiated, developed and carried to completion principally by the Liberal-Conservative party; and he can call them Tories if he likes. We are asked to-day to make concessions to the Northwest. Who made the Northwest?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: The Tories.
Some hon. MEMBERSWe did.


Mr. SHE ARD:: I hear some hon. gentleman among the Progressives say "We did." The country was made before my hon. friends located there. It was a great Tory chieftain who initiated the building of the railroad that enabled my hon. friends to get there; they must not forget that the opening up of the West was largely due to Conservative efforts. When it came along to the time of Alexander Mackenzie, and I remember that time-the Dominion was practically on the rocks. Talk about farm produce and farming conditions! Why you could not sell anything on a farm anywhere. Potatoes were hawked from door to door in the city of Toronto for 25 cents a bag, and the vendor placed them in the cellar for that price too. It was the protective policy which resulted in the development of our industries, made possible the utilization and direction of our raw materials and enabled our home market to exist at all, it was that policy which gave confidence to the capitalist who put his money into the development of the manufacturing industries of this Dominion; and following this came the opening of mines and storehouses of treasure which are the astonishment of the world to-day and were never previously dreamed of. There is nothing becoming in the sneer sometimes indulged in on this subject by people who do not know the real, the fundamental and basic conditions on which this nation has been built. Then I want to say still further that it was the same party, in the main, who founded, fostered and developed
the British preference as against all other preferences.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: That is a new doctrine.


William John Ward: That is something that is still in existence and will be carried on for a long time to come. We on this side are quite determined to wait and see. I am very keenly interested in the Budget which the Minister of Finance is going to bring down. I might venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that I really believe my hon. friends opposite are somewhat seized of the responsibility of their position because we do not hear so much from them this session; they are very silent, a contrast, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, to their course last session. Why there was not a single debate at that time but we heard from them at length. For example there was the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon); we were certain to hear a blast or two from him and there were two or three others who were equally voluminous in their utterances and their menaces. Well, they are silent as the tomb. They are confronted to-day with a situation which must have astounded them when they realized their position, and probably they are cudgelling their brains to know what to do. It is our privilege to watch and wait.
I do not believe in long speeches. If a man cannot say all he has to say in thirty minutes, he had better leave the rest of his speech unsaid. May I say in conclusion, that I join with my hon. friends opposite, as I join with the party to my left, to work for the common good of Canada, for the development and prosperity of this Dominion, for the strengthening of the Empire as a commonwealth of nations, of which we form a part. We expect them to do their part and not to cast across the floor of this House intimations-I was going to say insinuations-of a sectional character, as if they were meant to taunt those of us who happen to hold opinions contrary to theirs. Such debates, and such distinguished characteristics of debate, cannot, in my humble judgment, contribute to the harmony and unity of purpose which should prevail in parliament. We hope that the result of our deliberations will be beneficial to all concerned, and I am sure this will be accomplished if we will only endeavour to yield a little, and if my Progressive friends will only realize that they cannot get everything they wish from Parliament. Rome was not built in a day,
The Address

and it will take time to accomplish results. I hope we will all work for the benefit of the country and the peace and prosperity which we hope to see this Dominion enjoy.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Saskatoon) :: Mr. Speaker, it has been a great pleasure to me to meet face to face, many of the great men from the East whom I only knew previously by name. I congratulate you, Sir, on the high position to which you have been appointed. I have listened with some interest to lengthy speeches for a great many days during the recent debate. I congratulate the member for North Winnipeg (Mr. McMurray) on the splendid address he gave. It was very pleasing to most of us to find a young man holding, and giving expressions to, such high ideals. I have taken note of some of the passages-at-arms across the floor of the House, and truly on both sides it can be said that they did whet their tongues like swords and bend their bows to shoot their arrows, even bitter words. But, sitting here in my place listening, I wondered sometimes what they hoped to gain by it. However, I have obtained some information from these speeches. One thing is certain, that both parties, Liberal and Conservative alike, appear to gain inspiration mostly when they are slinging darts at each other.
I am pleased, Sir, with the fact that the Speech from the Throne deals very largely with those planks in the platform of the Farmers', or Progressive party which are most essential. Particularly does it mention the deplorable state of agriculture as regards markets and prices. That agriculture is in a deplorable state in Western Canada to-day is due to a variety of causes. One of these causes is the drought which has prevailed over very large areas of the Prairie provinces. I believe hail to some extent is responsible for hard times. But the worst feature, Sir, as regards agriculture to-day in Western Canada, and to a great extent in the older provinces as well, is the loss of faith and courage, and the dark outlook as to the future which is facing our people, brought about, not by natural causes, but by the persistent manipulation of legislation in the interests of those who control the manufacture and distribution of all our commodities, and who own and control all the facilities which we need to use in a public way. .
There are plenty of evidences to-day that agriculture is in a deplorable state in Western Canada. In support of that statement I point to the fact that some of our

rural telephone centrals are being closed at the present time, and some of the municipalities are also closing the day schools for the next six months, because the taxes cannot be collected. Mutual insurance companies are finding a hard time to exist, and some of them have already gone under. In every activity in which we engage at the present time, it is impossible to find a market at a price which leaves anything for the producer. In Saskatchewan, we have determined to follow diversified methods of farming and towards that end we have established a system of co-operative creameries. We are also engaged in the live stock business to an extent that does credit to that young province, but at the present time the markets for the products of the dairy are closed to us on account of high freight rates. The chairman of the Cooperative Creamery Company in Saskatchewan is authority for t'he statement that New Zealand is landing her butter on the coast of British Columbia cheaper than it can be shipped there from central Saskatchewan. The result is that butter cannot be produced and marketed except at a loss. Live stock cannot be moved under the present freight rates and leave anything for the farmer. Now that the prices of all farm products have fallen, in most cases below pre-war prices, it is only reasonable to expect that some consideration will be immediately shown in the matter of freight rates.
These things have darkened the outlook of the Canadian farmer, but the callousness of the late Government and the Railway Commission-place the blame where you like-will bring calamity, sudden and final, to the agricultural interests in Western Canada, unless something is immediately done to relieve the situation. The failure of the Railway Commission to lower the rates on grain before the last crop was moved, as we expected it would, has resulted in filching something like $18,000,000 from this already impoverished industry. We are still paying about $92 per car more than we should to get our wheat to Fort William. The effort to make the railways pay their way by repeatedly increasing the freight rates is only another case of killing the goose that lays the golden egg; it is curtailing production and providing less and less for the railways to earn. Surely it is only common sense to realize that freight rates in any country cannot be made higher than will permit commerce to move freely. Speaking of railways, I

The Address
claim there is only one policy to be followed if economies are to be effected, and that is a real system of consolidation of all government railways under one management and control.
I was very much struck with the speeches of two hon. members from the Maritime provinces. The member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) gave a long address relating particularly to the Intercolonial railway, but just what he wanted when he said that he did not want that road linked up with any other Canadian system I hardly know. Does he want that railway as a mere toy? The only grievance that I could find in his complaint was that the joy of free riding had been interfered with since the railway had been linked up with the Canadian system. 'Undoubtedly consolidation would be a benefit to all concerned in that there would be control in a centralized buying of rolling stock, motive power, rails and equipment of all kinds. There must also be union terminals and through traffic rates established before the railways can be economically run. At present the West provides an example in this respect of unified management and control. The Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern, -west of Winnipeg, have been incorporated into one system, and the whole of the West is reaping the benefit in service; and I can assure the House that we are proud of the railways in Western Canada, and the improvement that has been effected in the service since this was brought about, to say nothing of the economies.
Now, to enable the agriculturists to go on the land this spring with some degree of hope, faith, and courage, immediate and drastic measures are needed, particularly with regard to transportation and the marketing of our products. This is surely needed in the interests of the country as a whole, if the evil of the unemployment situation and trade depression is ever to be overcome. When you consider the fact that the western crop provides nearly 30 per cent of the value of all our exports, it is obvious that there is nothing that will restore confidence at one stroke, so to speak, so much as the re-establishment of the Wheat Board. It was a short-sighted policy on the part of the late government to discontinue this method of marketing our grain, just when the farmers of Western Canada began to have some faith in the work it was doing. It should have been continued at least during the whole
of the reconstruction period, which evidently has not yet passed.
Since our coming "to Ottawa it has cheered our hearts somewhat to find that the Government has taken note of the fact that our markets for some years past have been restricted; and we are glad that they are now setting themselves the task of obtaining freer trade relations with other countries, particularly the United States. Had I taken part in the flag-waving campaign of deception that was earried on in 1911, I should not be found as one of the number sitting under that banner to-day, knowing the awful consequences that have ensued.
Speaking of the tariff in general, it is in this system of trade prevention that we find the cause of the great loss in rural population in western Canada, particularly in the older provinces. We find in it, also the reason for the stagnation of development in the three prairie provinces and the older provinces as well. We see in this system of trade penalties the basis of that perfect organization in the Dominion to-day that controls all manufacturing and the distribution of every commodity which the workers on the land need to use. In the most stable part of Ontario there has been a large loss of rural population. Up to 1911 the rural population of Ontario, perhaps the banner province of the Dominion, had lost some 111,620 souls. I can point to some counties in that province to-day where great losses have occurred. For instance, the township of East Zorra in Oxford County has closed, during the last twenty years, 13 per cent of its farm homes, and Ashville, in Huron county, which I am informed is the finest agricultural township in Ontario, has closed 15 per cent of the farm homes during the same period. Surely there is a cause for all this.
While the Liberal government in years gone by was tardy in dealing with this great system of privilege, which robs the workers of their earnings and concentrates, under the control of the few, the wealth that is created, we are looking forward now with hope to something practical being done, and we trust that before the session comes to a close the Government will take itself seriously and try to implement the promises and pledges it gave in its platform of 1896, 1910-1911, again in the convention of 1919, and the promises it made during the last campaign that brought it into power. When the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) spoke the other day he said he believed in the Laurier-Fielding
The Address

tariff. I wondered just what he meant. It seems to me there are two phases to that tariff: one, as professed in their platforms and on the hustings during the campaign; the other, what they have actually put into practice. But at this time it is surely plain to all that the old national policy has had a fair trial and that after forty-three years of its operation under the most favourable circumstances conceivable it has brought about conditions that at the present time amount almost to a calamity. This old national policy, which my hon. friends to the right so strenuously uphold, was advocated for the purpose of looking after the working man. He was to have good wages, or as it was expressed, "a full dinner pail," and our natural resources were to be developed. What condition do we find to-day? That policy is responsible for the worst unemployment situation this country has ever faced, and has brought about the very calamities that it was intended to avert. It is no use saying that the war is responsible; the war simply put off the trouble for a time. Unemployment is rife from one end of the Dominion to the other, and, according to my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth), while a quarter of a million men are idle, our manufacturers are importing raw material from any and every country where they can obtain it the cheapest, although our own mines and forests abound with the very raw material needed. What is the matter? I have it on the authority of the late president of the Massey-Harris Company that that company is dependent on foreign countries for seventy per cent of its raw materials. Our agricultural implement companies to-day import large quantities of Georgia pine for the tongues of their binders, drills, mowing machines, and other implements, while our forests abound with timber suitable for that purpose. The old national policy is a failure.


Mr. HARRIS:: Will the hon. member
kindly tell us where the connection comes in between the national policy and the bringing of Georgia pine into this country to make tongues for binders and other agricultural implements?


John Evans: I see the connection, Sir, in that the old national policy was advocated for the very reason that it was going to develop our natural resources. Those resources are still undeveloped, and our manufacturers are seeking their raw materials in foreign lands to-day.

I find on page 157 of the Report of the Dominions' Royal Commission that although Canada supplies over eighty-five per cent of the world's nickel, yet when that commission went through the Dominion only a short time ago there was not one nickel refinery in this country. I believe that under the pressure of war necessity some small refining plants have been established since then. I repeat, the old national policy has been a failure in that it has failed to do what it was advocated to do.
If trade had been carried on on a freer basis with the great country to the south of us, and with the rest of the world as well, we would to-day have a contented and virile population twice as large as we have now. Hon. members to my right have held up to us the benefits of the home market. I submit that a contented population upon the prairies to-day and throughout the other provinces would provide our manufacturers with a home market which their restrictive policy has destroyed. What folly it is to talk of a home market for the grain of Western Canada, three-quarters of which must be sold in foreign countries. That old theory has been exploded, and when it is put forth now we cannot treat it any more seriously than a joke. Freer trade relations will ensure wider markets. But then I am met with the question: What will you do for revenue, where is it to come from?
On the motion of Mr. Evans the debate was adjourned.
On the motion of Mr. Fielding the House adjourned at eleven p.m.
Wednesday, March 22, 1922