1922-03-14

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE- WEDNESDAY SITTINGS

Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Fielding:
That on Wednesday the fifteenth day of March instant and subsequent Wednesdays to the end of the session, the House will meet at three o'clock in the afternoon.
I may say in regard to this motion, Mr. Speaker, that during the sessions of the previous Parliament the House assembled at two o'clock on Wednesdays instead of three. Experience, however, went to show that meeting an hour earlier on one day of the week resulted in a good deal of confusion, inconvenience and embarrassment, and I think it will probably better serve the convenience of all members if we assemble at the same hour on Wednesday as on other days of the week.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: This is a variation of a long standing rule of the House, but by way of trial I offer no objection to it at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette):: Before the Orders of the Day are called I should like to ask my hon. friend the

The Address

Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) if any report has been made to the Government by the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission appointed by the late Government, known in Western Canada as the Hyndman Commission, and if so, whether such report will be made available to the House. I should like also to ask whether the Government has a copy of the evidence taken, and if it is the intention to submit such evidence to the House.


Hon. J. A. ROBB:: (Minister of Trade and Commerce) There is a voluminous amount of correspondence in the department, but no definite report. The expense of printing this evidence would be' considerable. I see no objection to supplying it to my hon. friend if he so desires, and if the House decides to bear the expense of printing it there will be no objection to that being done.


Arthur Meighen: May I ask the minister if it is the intention of the Government to continue the work of the commission?


James Alexander Robb: Well, the Wheat Board have apparently discontinued their own work. They have run out of supplies.


Arthur Meighen: The Wheat Board?


James Alexander Robb: The Grain Commission.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH. ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. McMurray for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Monday, March 13.
Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Speaker, my first words this afternoon shall be words of congratulation to you, Sir, upon your elevation to the position of First Commoner of the land. The office of Speaker in the greatest deliberative assembly of the nation is one of much responsibility. I think the House has been happy in its choice, Sir, and I have no douht that hon. members will give you every assistance in the maintenance of that order and decorum which are necessary for the proper conduct of the public business.
It is appropriate also that I join with the right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the words which they have uttered with regard to the appointment of His Excellency Lord Byng to be

Governor General of Canada. A good many of us have pleasant recollections of the late Governor General, the Duke of Devonshire. I have no doubt that the present Governor General will soon gain from the whole of the Canadian people that esteem and respect that he gained so rapidly among the Canadian soldiers when he was their chief at the front.
I wish also-and I feel a particular pride in doing so-to say a word of welcome on the part of my fellow Progressive members here to the new lady member of this House. I think it is particularly fitting, Mr. Speaker, that the first lady member elected to the House of Commons, marking a distinct step in progress, should be elected as a member of the Progressive Party. We have recently given the women of Canada the franchise. I am a thorough believer in that reform; I believe that the women of Canada can make a great contribution to the public life of the country, and I have no doubt that our new member will make a valuable contribution to the work of the House.
I wish also to say a word of felicitation, not only because it is customary but because I think it can be sincerely offered upon the present occasion, to the mover (Mr. McMurray) and to the seconder (Mr. Mer-cier) of the motion we are considering. It is not a light ordeal for a new member to speak from his place in this House for the first time; I recall my own experience in that connection. But I know I am well within the judgment of the whole House when I say that the hon. member for North Winnipeg discharged his duty yesterday very well indeed. Unfortunately for me I do not speak the graceful language of my hon. friends from Quebec and I was therefore unable to follow in actual text the address given by my hon. friend who seconded the motion. But I am bound to say that of the many admirable speeches that I have listened to in the French language none has impressed me more than the speech I heard from my hon. friend yesterday.
It is proper that I should make some reference to the speeches of my right hon. friend who leads the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) and my hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). If the speeches we had yesterday from our hon. friends, Mr. Speaker, are an indication of what we shall have throughout the whole session and this Parliament, I can well believe that we are in for some interesting times. I should like to have seen a little more discussion of the really serious prob-

The Address
lems that are facing this country. The business of this Parliament is very serious, and I hope I am not giving any offence to my hon. friends when I offer them this advice, that it would be well in the future to give more consideration to the great problems that are facing us in this country.
My hon. friend who leads the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) had a good deal to say as to the character of the campaign carried on in some parts of Canada by my hon. friends on the Government side. Well, I had some experience myself of the character of the campaign carried on in some parts of the country by my hon. friends on the other side of the House, and I dare say that my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition had a similar experience, but I must say that he was living perilously near a glass house when he was making those charges. I am among those who believe that the election campaigns of this country, whether federal or provincial, should be conducted as far as possible upon the basis of a clear and honest discussion of the issues before the people. I conceive that only in such a way can the best government be secured. I have no patience with the character of the campaign that was carried on by some of my hon. friends on the Government side in the province of Quebec, both in respect to the question of conscription and the question of the tariff. As far as Western Canada was concerned, and Eastern Canada too, very largely, on what basis was the campaign against the Progressive party and the Progressive candidates carried on? On a basis of utter and gross misrepresentation. As far as Western Canada was concerned, the record of the Government and the question of the tariff were discussed very little. I discovered in the election contest recently closed that I had become a most dangerous character in this Dominion, and if some of the things that I heard were said about me and about some of my associates sitting behind me, in the last election campaign in Western Canada were true, I certainly should not be occupying a seat in this House of Commons to-day. I say again, let us endeavour to free our minds of these things, for there are great and vital issues before this country at the present time. Let us concentrate our attention upon these issues and endeavour to seek a solution for our problems; along the line of what will be in the best interests of our country. On no other line can I conceive that we can discharge our duties to our constituents as we should.
We have had a change of government, and we shall wait with interest to see what benefits that change of government will bring to this country. That brings me to a matter that was referred to by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition and by my hon. friend the Prime Minister. I refer to the question of the negotiations that were entered into, or were supposed to be entered into, between the Government and myself and one or two members representing the Progressive party elected in the last campaign. My hon. friend the Prime Minister, I think, was animated by a sincere desire to do what was in the best interests of this country, but when he states that he made it quite clear in any proposals or suggestions he made, that this ministry was only to be a Liberal ministry I must say that I did not so understand it. When these proposals were first made they were discussed or suggested on the basis of policy and on the basis of the personnel of the Government; and that, to my mind, is the essential thing. I am not much concerned with what government is in power in this country so long as the country gets the legislation and the administration it should have. I have had a great many differences of opinion with my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, who was very kind in his references yesterday -or at all events in the inference that might be drawn from his references to his hon. friends who sit on his left; but notwithstanding the strong differences of opinion I have had with my right hon. friend I would be prepared to co-operate with him or with anyone else at the present time to secure for this country the administration and the legislation that it needs. But such co-operation would be upon definite lines of principle, upon definite lines of policy, and upon no other lines. I submitted the suggestions that had been conveyed to me to my supporters, as it was my duty to do. Those suggestions were considered and there were further discussions, but nothing came of those discussions, and we are here to-day sitting in this House as an independent party standing for the principles that we believe in and prepared to further those principles by every honest and legitimate means within our power.
There has been some speculation in the press, and, I dare say, also in the House, as to what attitude the Progressive party would take in this House. Well, Sir, the attitude of the Progressive party is easily
The Address

and simply stated. We are here, not to oppose for the sake of opposing; we are here prepared to give the Government every assistance in carrying on the government of this country, when it gives the country the policies that we believe it should have. I say that we are prepared to do that, but we are equally prepared to oppose the Government and to criticise it when we think the Government is doing wrong or not adopting the policies that we think this country should have. That, to my mind, frankly and clearly states our position. My own hope, and I am bound to say that the words of my hon. friend the Prime Minister give some ground for that hope, is that the policy pursued by the Government in respect of the great vital questions before the country, to which later I shall make some allusion, will be such as to command our support. If their course is shaped in that direction so that we can support them, we shall do so, but if it is not, our duty then will lie in another direction.
I am among those also who believe that the Government should have a reasonable time to carry out its policies and to frame its programme. I quite realize the difficulties of the present situation, that a government coming into office only a few months before a session is called has not had the opportunity to familiarize itself with all the questions of public administration, and perhaps not the opportunity to make a full inquiry as to the lines of public policy that should be followed, and we are therefore prepared to give the Government every reasonable time to shape its course and decide upon its line of action.
I desire to speak, and I shall not detain the House at any great length, upon the subjects dealt with in the Speech from the Throne. It was a good speech as such speeches go. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition was on rather poor ground yesterday when he criticised the tariff plank in the Speech, because I recall that a year ago we expected from the Speech delivered at that time, that definite tariff proposals would be laid before Parliament. There is one thing that strikes me, Sir, in respect of the recent Speech and it is that there are in it no decided statements of Government policy excepting perhaps on one or two particulars. There is the suggestion that several branches of defence in Canada should be co-ordinated or joined together under one minister. I think that is a step in the right direction, and I would commend to the

Prime Minister and to the other members of the Government that that course might very well be followed in respect to other departments of the public service. I sometimes think that this country is over-governed. I know that in the United States, with a population of 108 or 110 millions of people, the cost of the Federal Government is relatively much lighter than it is in the Dominion of Canada; and I trust that when the Minister of Militia brings down his estimates he will carry the good work further and pare those estimates as closely as he can. One of the criticisms I had to offer of the late Government was the fact that it did not practise economy as it should be practised having in view the conditions and the circumstances of the country, and I trust that we shall not be obliged to level the same criticism at the members of the present Government when its estimates are placed before the House.
The Speech refers to the existing worldwide depression. Well, we are all pretty well familiar with that. I think we have all, as a matter of fact, pretty much experienced it in our own pockets.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am glad to hear that
note of aproval from my hon. friend the ex-Finance Minister because I think perhaps he had a very active experience during his tenure of office of this condition of affairs.
There is also a paragraph in the Speech from the Throne, and to my mind a very important one, dealing with the condition of agriculture in the Dominion. There is [DOT] no doubt, Sir, that the condition of agriculture throughout Canada to-day is very serious indeed. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is, I am sure well aware of that fact. After all when we survey this whole Dominion from one end to the other, when we take account of the great manufacturing establishments that we have built up, may we not properly ask upon what does the real prosperity of this Dominion rest? It rests upon our agriculture; and if the farmers of this* country are not prosperous, if agriculture is not thriving, then there is only one inevitable consequence-the business of the country languishes and dies. What is the situation to-day? I venture to say that a great majority of the farmers of Western Canada, that portion of the Dominion with which I am more intimately acquainted, conducted their business last year at a loss. I believe it is true of other portions of the

The Address
Dominion. And what is the result? The result is that our factories are closed, there is unemployment in our cities, and there is lack of business for our railways. At a previous session I gave figures to the House showing the value of our agricultural exports in comparison with the total of our exports from Canada; and without any question of doubt whatever an examination of the facts in all their particulars shows conclusively that agriculture is the greatest industry of this Dominion, and that upon its success more than upon anything else depends the success of all the other industries and business activities of Canada.
I am very glad to note in the Speech from the Throne this statement:
It is apparent that adequate markets and marketing facilities and reduced transportation and production costs lie at the root of the problem.
There is no doubt that better methods of tillage, better methods of farming, and better live stock will increase prosperity and the profits of the farmer; but it is equally true, in the largest sense, that the very things stated here are the things that vitally affect the prosperity of agriculture in this Dominion. The paragraph I have quoted makes the declaration that adequate markets are a part of the problem. That is unquestionably true. How a country such as Canada, with half of its people engaged in the business of agriculture, can have too many markets, or too broad markets, for its agricultural products passes my comprehension. I am not at all sure that the visit of the Minister of Finance to Washington recently was well timed. He of course is the best judge of that; but I do want to commend the purpose of my hon. friend in his desire to promote better trade relations with the United States in respect to markets for our agricultural products. I am not so sure as to how far the Minister of Finance has the support of all those who sit behind and around him in this proposal; but if any words of mine will have any influence with my hon. friend I hope he will persevere in that good work and, if possible, secure that market for Canada's products. I do not agree with the view of my right hon,. friend the leader of the Opposition, who yesterday briefly argued that reciprocity would be of no value to the Canadian farmer. How that argument can be made in the face of patent facts I cannot understand. The year before last we exported, if my memory
serves me right, 350,000 head of live stock-over one year old to the United States. When our American friends passed their Fordney Emergency Tariff that market *was shut off, and what was the result?' The result was that the farmers of Canada did not have that market for their live stock, and the value of live stock in the live stock markets of the Dominion went down, and went down steadily. Now ia that a good thing for Canada or is it not? Is it a good thing for this Dominion that the farmers of Canada shall get the highest possible prices for their live stock and for their grain? I conceive that it is, because if the farmer has money in his pocket, he buys goods from the merchant and contributes traffic to the railways. As a result of that operation the whole area of business is extended and enlarged so that the whole country benefits from it-That is the inevitable result, and consequently there is no greater need for this country to-day than that of wider markets.
A reference is also made in the Speech to the need of improved market facilities. I presume that the Government have in mind in that respect the marketing of the wheat of this country. I hope their reference has a wider application even than that. One of the great difficulties in Canada to-day, and one of the causes of the high cost of living, is the expensive system of distribution, not only of farm products, but of the supplies that consumers require. I am a great believer in voluntary co-operation among the people to overcome these difficulties. I recognize that the middleman in some cases, perhaps, has his place, but when a great body of consumers and producers have to support a vast army of middlemen, it is not a healthy condition, and I trust the Government have in mind in this respect the encouragement and the opening up of these avenues of co-operation.
I would like to make a reference particularly to the marketing of our wheat. The conditions in the past year have been very bad. As my hon. friends know, there is a widespread feeling in Western Canada, shared not only by producers, but by many business men as well, that the Canada Wheat Board should be re-established in a temporary way to meet this condition, and I noted with interest the statement of my hon. friend the Prime Minister yesterday that the whole question of marketing wheat is to be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I
The Address

would suggest that it be done as quickly as possible, so that the whole matter can be thoroughly inquired into. My right hon. friend who leads the Opposition has advanced a proposal that may have some merit in it, the proposal of a voluntary wheat pool under the control of the Government, but I am not convinced that that proposal as a permanent method of marketing grain, or indeed the method of a Government Wheat Board as a permanent method of marketing grain, is the best and soundest method.
I recently had the opportunity of learning that in the United States great progress has been made in the past few years in the development of co-operative pooling organizations, handling fruits, grain and other commodities used and produced by farmers. In the United States, within the past year, the Federal Government has given substantial assistance in the way of financing these pools in their selling operations. That was done through the revival of the War Finance Corporation, which it will be recalled functioned in the United States during the war. This question of how the Government can aid by assistance of this kind is one that might very well engage the attention of the Government. I can tell them now that they will have the opposition of our banking institutions, but our banking institutionsarenotfreighted with all the financial wisdom that this country contains. This questions is one that should receive the consideration of the Government, and it is a field that can be explored, I feel sure, with great profit to the country.
There is another suggestion in this declaration, namely that production costs should come down. I sincerely hope that that is a forerunner of the wiping out of the duty on agricultural implements. It is absolutely necessary that production costs come down in this country, and where the wisdom comes in, in increasing the cost of the equipment the farmer uses on his farm passes my comprehension. The world is going through a period of great change. It is a well known fact that before the war, Russia, with its population of
160,000,000 or 170,000,000 people, was one of the greatest competitors of North America in supplying Europe with the wheat for the breadstuffs her people consumed. Russia since the war has been out of that market, but there are signs to-day that the restoration of Russia has commenced, indeed, if it is not well on the way,

and within a few years that great country, which is now so stricken with famine and pestilence, will be supplying the markets of the world with wheat in competition with us. I say to the Prime Minister and to the members of his Government that there is no more important matter that can engage their attention to-day than the question of how these production costs can be brought down, and when they face that consideration they will recognize that one method in which that can be done is by taking the duties off agricultural implements.
My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) and my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) have a very full and complete knowledge of the needs of the people in Western Canada. There are those who have said that if the United States raises a tariff against our wheat and against our live stock, we should raise our tariff against them by way of retaliation. What an absurd policy. In other words, when you find the farmers of Canada shut off from this market, thus placed in the position where they have to carry on their work under greater disabilities, you propose to help them-how? By raising the duties, or increasing the cost of the equipment they have to use. The sensible thing to do under such circumstances is to endeavour to meet that condition by reducing the cost of the things the farmer needs to carry on his operations.
There is one other thought suggested in this paragraph. It is a reference to transportation costs and I judge from what the Speech states that that matter is engaging the attention of the Government. I trust that it will engage their attention, Mr. Speaker, to good purpose. Without question one of the things that is throttling business and industry in this country more than anything else is the excessive freight rates that the country is labouring under. Those increases have been very considerable. I am not going to debate the question now whether those increases were justified or not. In a large measure they were justified, owing to conditions under which the country was labouring at that time, but when you find a condition of affairs where a farmer, for instance, ships his oats from the province of Alberta to Fort William, and finds that almost half the money he realizes on the oats at Fort William has been taken in freight to pay

The Address
the transportation costs, then I say this country cannot prosper under those conditions. Consequently, this question of freight rates is one that should engage the attention of the Government, and if the Government are not competent or able to deal with it, the question should engage the attention of this House.
There are some changes forecasted in the customs tariff. I read that paragraph, Mr. Speaker, with a good deal of care, indeed I will confess that I read it a good many times. It is a very carefully worded paragraph. I hope it forecasts a revision of duties downwards. I cannot conceive for a moment that the Government would think ,of 'revising the tariff upwards.
I hope that will not be done, although when I read the speeches delivered even since the Government was formed by some of its members I have a mental reservation even on that question.
I say that because I have in my hand an extract from the Montreal Gazette of February 3, giving a report of a meeting of the Shoe Manufacturers' Association of Canada at which the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) was present. The Minister of Justice delivered a speech upon that occasion, and I shall read from the report in the Gazette. The Gazette is an old established newspaper. It is veering very close to my hon. friends on the Government side at the present time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hear, hear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I believe that the exMinister of Finance has a note of regret in his "Hear, hear." Not only the Montreal Gazette, but the Montreal Star as well, are adopting a very friendly attitude to my hon. friends on the Government side.


Mr. JACOBS:: Loaves and fishes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am not at all sure that that will bring much comfort to the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), but at any rate I want to deal with this report of the speech made by the Minister of Justice. It reads:
Sir Lomer Gouin pointed out that from 1900 to 1914 the importation of foreign-made shoes had increased 700 per cent and that women- who now had their share of public rights and obligations-were responsible for the importation from the United States last year of over 500,000 pairs of shoes for a value of $1,700,000.
Very serious offence. He added, and I want hon. members to note this:
For that reason, he added, we can easily understand that our Canadian manufacturers
should insist on being granted a reasonable measure of protection to assure the survival of an industry which is as old as the country Itself. For it is on home trade alone, or nearly so, that your industry must live and thrive.
And so on. That is as fine protectionist doctrine as I have ever heard preached in this country, and I trust that doctrine will not be the one that will guide the Government when it comes to the consideration of revising the tariff. The tariff should be revised downward and downward very considerably. During the election there were those who said that I stood for absolute free trade, and that if the Progressive party came into power the tariff would be swept away over night. That proposal has never been made anywhere at any time by any member of the Progressive party. I am convinced that the principle of protection is not suited as a fiscal policy for this country, and this country will never develop as it should develop as long as protection is embedded as the guiding principle of our fiscal policy. I recognise that it is and will be necessary for a considerable time to raise revenue by customs duties; but a tariff based upon the principle of revenue and the needs of revenue is an altogether different thing from a tariff based upon the principle of protection, and I earnestly hope the Government, when they come to present to Parliament their concrete proposals in respect to the fiscal policy of this country, will be guided by the former principle. Indeed, as my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) pointed out to the House yesterday, the Government have a very explicit and definite programme as regards the tariff. I had intended pointing that out. It is a definite programme, and I think the country expects-and I hope it will not be disappointed-that the Government will, in a very considerable degree, at this session implement the tariff programme that was part of its platform when it appealed to the Canadian people.
Another question to which I wish to refer is the railways. I am glad to note the declaration in the Speech from the Throne in connection with our National railways. I take it to mean that the intention of the Government is to give public ownership of these roads a full and fair trial in this country. If that end is to be achieved, one or two things are absolutely vital. One is that those roads comprising the Government system-I care not whether you call it co-ordination or amalgamation or anything else-be placed absolutely and without any question of doubt under one
The Address

central management, and be controlled by that management; otherwise you cannot avoid having duplication. I am a believer in the principle of public ownership of public utilities. I know there are in this House many who do not hold that view; there are many of my hon. friends on the Government side who do not hold that view. I respect their opinion; but I believe, that in these questions of great public utilities, in the end, even with all the defects that public ownership may have, from public ownership the greatest good will come to the greatest number of people, and that is the only basis upon which these things should be considered. But even if it should turn out in the future that we are not pursuing a wise course in respect to public ownership of these roads, I point out to my hon. friends in the Government that, for pure business reasons alone, the only thing to do is to handle this proposition as a business proposition, to do what private capital or management would do under similar circumstances, namely, to co-ordinate those roads absolutely and entirely as regards management. Build your system into one complete whole, and then, no matter what disposition you may desire to make of it in the future, you have an asset that is worth while. Our Government railways, with all that has been said about and against them, are potentially a good asset for this country, and why? What is the cardinal defect of our railway system to-day? It is that this country is overbuilt with railways. I am not going to apportion the blame for that. I would say that the blame rests, perhaps, on governments of the past, and it rests, perhaps equally on the people of this country, because any programme of lavish expenditure of public money always commanded public support, and was a strong temptation to any party in power to embark upon and engage in it. But while that is true, these roads must and should be handled as a business proposition. How has it come about that the public have these roads to-day? We have them for one reason and one reason only: private ownership and operation absolutely broke down. Public ownership of railways in this country was not the deliberate choice of the people; it was forced upon us because of the collapse of private ownership and operation; and I am well within the judgment of the House when I make that statement. There are those who would like to see our National Railway system broken up. I see articles in the newspapers which 
force upon me the conclusion that there is in progress in this country to-day an active propaganda against the National railways. The solution of the question will never be found in that direction. I submit that these roads must have a fair and full trial, and I am glad to know that it is the intention of the Government to give them that trial; and so far as their efforts go in that direction I can assure them that we in the Progressive section of the House will give the Government our support in their endeavours in this respect. If I may for a moment play the part of a candid friend, I may say to the Prime Minister, whom I wish well in the high office he occupies, that there is perhaps no question to-day upon which there is greater doubt in the public mind than that which respects the probable course of the Government in regard to the railways, and I say to the hon. gentlemen that if his course is fixed, clear, and unequivocal along the lines I have indicated, he will do a great deal to relieve the anxiety that exists in Canada at the present time. An inquiry is referred to. We have no information, either in the Speech from the Throne or from the Prime Minister, as to what is involved in that inquiry, and we shall await the Government's proposals in that respect before offering further criticism thereon.
I desire for a moment to refer to another important matter mentioned in the Speech, and that is the question of immigration. I am very glad to know that the Government are alive to this important subject. I cannot agree with the optimistic view expressed by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) as to the results of the last census. I think that the last census figures are disappointing, and I propose to give to the House very briefly some information on this matter. Our present population, according to the census figures, is slightly over 8,750,000 people.


Arthur Meighen: The population is
8.774.000.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, 20,000 more; I
I thought it was exactly 8,764,000; however,
I stand corrected. Our population at present, then, is 8,774,000. The population in 1911, according to the official census was
7.206.000.	Now we have taken into Canada, through the gates of immigration during the last decade, 1,812,000. We have also had a natural increase, in excess of births over deaths, during the same period, of 1,140,000. Our population on this basis

The Address
of the figures of 1911, supplemented by immigration secured, and natural increase during the period, should be 10,158,000. [DOT] We shall allow for a very considerable wastage during the war. We know that we had heavy losses during that time, but I think that 158,000 would cover the wastage that occurred in connection with the war. So that on a fair basis, if we had held our people in Canada, we should have to-day a population of at least 10,000,000 souls in this Dominion. But the figures show that we have slightly in excess of 8,750,000; in other words, there are well over one million people who have gone somewhere and whom we should have in Canada. Is that a serious condition of affairs, or is it not?
I think it is. What is the use of our spending millions a year in promoting immigration to Canada when we are losing the people almost as fast as we can bring them to our doors? Some of my critics may say that immigration declined during the war, and that that fact accounts for the poor showing that the country has made in its last census. An examination of the official figures, however, discloses the fact that from 1901 to 1911 the total immigrants rereived into Canada numbered 1,764,000. During that period there was an increase of 34 per cent in the population. In the last decade we had an increase of only 21 per cent in the population. But during the last ten years we have received in immigration 1,812,000, or roughly speaking, 50,000 more in immigration than in the previous ten years. It is obvious, therefore, that this disappointment in our population is not due to a decline in immigration, because the immigration figures for the past ten years are in excess of those of the previous decade. This question is one which, I suggest, might well engage the attention of the Government. Why are people leaving Canada? People usually do not leave a country in which they are prosperous and happy, and I say that this question might very well engage the consideration of my hon. friends from the Maritime Provinces. There is one of those provinces that shows an actual decline in population in the last ten years. It is a rather curious fact that the little province of Prince Edward Island showed a steady increase in population until the national policy was introduced into Canada in 1878, but, in every decade, from 1880 up to the present day, that province has shown a loss in population. I trust that this whole question will
receive the serious attention of the Government, and I hope that my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), who I understand has now charge of the immigration work, will be able, when he submits his estimates to the House, to lay before us concrete suggestions on the part of the Government as to how this difficulty can be overcome and how immigration of desirable settlers, who will go on the land and stay there after they come into Canada, can be best promoted. The relation of population to other problems is quite apparent. I spoke a moment ago about our railways. If we had double the population we have in Canada we should have no railway problem to-day. What our railways lack is business, and business can come only through an increase in population. It is therefore a matter for concern when population does not increase as 4 p.m. rapidly as it should. Take, again, the great burden of the debt, in taxation, that rests upon the country. I need not give to the House the amount of the total debt of Canada; but it is obvious, even to a third form school boy, that if your population increases the per capita amount of the debt declines and, consequently, the per capita taxation upon the citizens is lessened. In view of these facts, therefore, the question of how our immigration can be increased and how the country can be settled is one of first rate importance from every point of view. I desire to make my position clear in that respect. We have sufficient people in our towns and cities to-day. What Canada needs is not artisans, or workmen, but a sturdy rural population. We need immigrants to go on the land, people who, as I said a moment ago, will stay there permanently when they do come into the country.
I notice also in the Speech from the Throne a reference to soldiers' re-establishment. We shall await with interest the proposals of the Government in that respect. I trust that the Government will be generous in the treatment of the disabled men; it is an obligation of honour resting upon the Canadian people and upon this Parliament, and it is an obligation which, I am sure, will be fully discharged.
Reference is also made to the the fact that the treaties passed at the Washington Conference will be submitted to the House for approval. We shall await the submission of those treaties. I am glad to note that Canada was represented at the
The Address

Washington Conference. I would make the suggestion to the Government, though some members of it may not agree with my view in this respect, that they might very well carry out the understanding that was reached a few years ago with the British Government by appointing a Canadian Ambassador to Washington. I have no criticism to offer of the British Embassy, but I do believe that these two great countries lying alongside each other for nearly four thousand miles have more interests in common with each other than they have, perhaps, with any other countries in the world in matters of business and trade. If we had a representative at Washington who could represent the Canadian viewpoint I am quite sure that great good would come to this Dominion.
I note also that Canada is to send a representative to the Genoa Conference, and I have seen reports in the press with regard to the appointments made in that respect. I would express my regret that the Government have appointed as one of the Commissioners to the Genoa Confer-* ence, Sir Charles Gordon. I have nothing against Sir Charles Gordon personally, but what is this Conference at Genoa? It is primarily an economic and financial conference; an occasion for the coming together of different countries with a view to seeing how a sick world can be made well; to see how business can be re-established between the nations. Sir Charles Gordon is well known as a high protectionist, and I feel that whatever influence he will have in that conference will be exercised along the line of maintaining those artificial barriers between nations, which, after all, in the long run are one of the greatest causes of international misunderstanding.
I wish to strongly commend the Government for the appointment they have made to the High Commissioner's office in London. I believe that Hon. Mr. Larkin will discharge admirably and well the duties of that position. He is going to a task of considerable magnitude; I hope and trust that he will justify the confidence that his friends have in him.
I do not need to impress upon the Government the necessity for economy; my hon. friend the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) at any rate is fully seized of that need. I want to offer a word of congratulation to the Finance Minister with respect to the sale of Canadian National Railway bonds that he made in New York the other day. He proceeded in the right

way so far as that transaction is concerned ; I think he himself can do this business just as well as turn it over to our friends the bond brokers and give them a large commission for handling it.
The financial condition of this country is serious. The people are suffering under heavy taxation. The question of how economies may be introduced into the administration of this country's business, are very pressing questions indeed. I may say in passing that I hope the Government will not accede to the request made by the manufacturers, who recently waited upon them, that additional revenue should be raised by an increase in the sales tax. My hon. friends opposite-some of them at any rate-know what an antediluvian theory the sales tax really is, and I trust the Government will not increase it. Indeed, I hope they may be able to reduce the existing one-and why? Because the sales tax bears most heavily upon the persons least able to pay. The workingman in the city with a family of six or eight children and a small income is taxed on practically everything he buys for his family-there are a few exceptions; but in the matter of clothing and a great many of the actual necessaries of life he is taxed through the operation of the sales tax. I do trust that among the proposals which will be submitted by the Finance Minister to the House for the raising of additional revenue, the sales tax will not be included.
There is one other suggestion I would make to the Government; it was one that I made to my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition when he was at the head of the late administration. It is this: that a conference of the leading municipal and provincial authorities and proper officials of the Federal Government be held to inquire into the whole question of taxation. What do we find to-day? We find overlapping of taxes in various provinces and, indeed, in the municipalities as well. For instance, I understand that the citizens of a certain city pay an income tax to the city, an income tax to the province, and an income tax to the federal treasury. Some way might be found of adjusting those differences. If such a conference is called it should be preceded by a thorough study of the question so that when the members of the conference come together the Government will be able to place before them full and accurate information in respect to the whole question of taxation in this Dominion. I have been told-I do not

The Address
know how true it is, but I think it is well within the mark-that the Canadian people are paying annually in taxes of all kinds, municipal, provincial and federal, close to one thousand million dollars a year. If that is true, I can conceive that a conference such as I suggest might be productive of very good results in delimiting the fields of taxation, in reaching an understanding as to where expenditures should be embarked upon; indeed, in promoting a sane financial policy for the whole country founded on its needs. That practice was followed during the dark days of the war when Sir Thomas White, then Finance Minister, developed to a certain degree a co-ordinated financial policy for the provinces and the Federal Government. I trust that this suggestion, which I offer in the desire to be of some real help, will be given consideration by my hon. friend the Prime Minister and by the members of the Government.
There are a few omissions from the Speech from the Throne. I find in it no reference to the question of redistribution. Redistribution should be dealt with at this session. I know that from the very nature of things, members of the Government have yet to become fully acquainted with their respective departments and they may desire to pass this matter over to another session. It is unlikely that an election will be held before another session, but in any case I think it would be well before this session closes to pass a measure of redistribution, and I am sure that the Government, when they come to a consideration of the question, will desire to have that redistribution fixed upon lines that are fair and just to all. After all, Western Canada has suffered more in this respect than other portions of the Dominion. I would point out to the House that an election followed the census of 1911, before the census figures were available for redistribution purposes, and the same thing has happened in respect of the last census. On a redistribution Western Canada would increase its representation by ten or twelve. Some of my hon. friends opposite and some of my hon. friends to my right may think that my suggestion is not altogether without selfinterest : had we had a redistribution before the last election, why, we would have had ten or twelve more sturdy Progressives from Western Canada on this side of the House.
There is also the question of proportional representation. The last election disclosed
more clearly, I think, than anything else could have done the need for this reform in our electoral machinery. What does it mean? It is simply a method for securing a more correct and exact registration of the people's will in their representation in Parliament; that is all proportional representation is. What do we find as a result of the last election? We find the party to my right without any representation from six provinces in this Dominion and yet the election figures show that there were a great many people-all misguided, I think-who supported the candidates of the leader .of the Opposition. These people should have some means of expressing their will in this House. The same is true in respect to the Progressives and in respect to the party supporting the Government. The Government would not have a great deal of difficulty in counting their supporters from the Prairie Provinces in this House, and yet the support the Government did receive in the Prairie Provinces does not adequately reflect the vote the Government policies received in those provinces. I am quite aware that had the last election been conducted on the system of proportional representation, there probably would not be as many Progressive supporters in this House as there are today. But I am not so much concerned about that as I am with this fact, that this House should be as nearly as possible a correct and exact expression of the will and wishes of the people of Canada. There is another argument in favour of proportional representation. My hon. friend the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday that a good many of the supporters who sit behind my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition were elected by minority votes. I think that if my hon. friend the Prime Minister examines the election figures, he will find that quite a considerable number of those who sit on his own side of the House were elected in the same way. I am putting this forward simply as an illustration of the need for this reform, and I trust that the Government will see its way clear to give favourable consideration to enacting a measure of proportional representation. Such a measure should apply in my judgment to the large cities of Canada, all those cities that elect two or more members. I should also like to see the principle of the transferable vote applied to single-member constituencies. With these reforms we shall get as exact a reflection of the will of the people of this country in this Parliament as it is possible to secure, and such a reform
The Address

is particularly needed in Canada. This country has serious dangers to face. Any one who knows anything of the history of Canada or has had any experience of government in this country knows that Canada is a difficult country to govern; it is difficult to govern because of the different elements in its population, and because of the vastness of its territory. There is always the danger of sectional differences, of racial differences, and even of religious difficulties arising. These dangers would be minimized if we had an electoral system in this country whereby this Parliament would become an exact reflection of the people's will, and I trust that or, that ground the Government will see fit to give favourable consideration to the enactment of this reform.
There were one or two other matters that I was going to touch upon, but they will wait; we shall have a further opportunity in this House of discussing many other matters of importance.
I re-echo fully the hope expressed by my hon. friend the Prime Minister yesterday that this country might become united, contented, and happy. I know of no greater ideal to strive for, but if this country is to become united, contented, and happy, its laws must be founded on justice; there must be fairness in administration to all, with special privilege to none; there must be equality for all. If we shape our course along these lines I am confident of Canada's future. We have a great country, great in its possibilities, great in the virility, energy and capacity of its people, and those of us who are labouring in this Parliament to-day have an opportunity to lay the foundations of our laws and their administration in a manner, that will be worthy of our country and promote its welfare and advancement.


Mr. WILLIS KEITH BALDWIN (Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address the House I first wish to congratulate the constituency of North Winnipeg on electing the capable young man they have sent to this House (Mr. McMurray). I am sure that we all enjoyed his lucid and eloquent speech. Those of us who had any forebodings respecting the seconder of the Address, the hon. member for Westmount-St. Henri (Mr. Mercier), must have been entirely reassured by his speech yesterday. We need have no fears for the future of his political life. His speech, too, was most eloquent.
I also wish to join with those who have congratulated the new lady member of this

House, the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail). I have been looking up her life and I find that she comes from the land like myself. I was born in the backwoods, and I still live there, and I am happy. It is the people who live in the backwoods who have a chance to develop a sound and discriminating judgment. We can feed our minds on the best of literature. I would warn my hon. friend from Southeast Grey not to be over-anxious to get into the world of fashion and fickleness.
I also wish to congratulate the hon. member who has just preceded me (Mr. Crerar). I take very little exception to anything that he said. He mentioned that the Finance Minister had gone to New York in connection with some financial matters. Now, I have always been opposed to procrastination. I can only say that it might not have been necessary for the Finance Minister to go to New York to raise a loan if the income tax had been collected by the late government from the Riordon Company, the Cockshutt Plow Company, the Canada Steel Company, and a multitude of other concerns who gave notes running close up to a hundred million dollars. I cannot speak exactly as to the figures, but these are plain and everyday facts.
The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) in his political decrepitude bewailed his position. I half expected him to shed tears over the position in which he has been placed, but he soon regained his old ardour, and yesterday he attacked the big men of this House, and their cohorts, although that word does not appear in Hansard. He attacked the Prime Minister; he attacked the ex-Premier of the province of Quebec, probably the most outstanding ex-Provincial Premier in Canada. He also attacked the ex-Provincial Treasurer of the province of Quebec, now the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Mitchell) in this House. Why, the present Provincial Treasurer of the province of Quebec is about to call in the whole bonded indebtedness of that province. By the wisdom of these hon. gentlemen, my hon. friend (Sir Lomer Gouin) who led the Liberal party in Quebec for so many years and my hon. friend (Mr. Mitchell) who was such a skilful and successful Provincial Treasurer, that province has attained to its present extremely prosperous and sound financial position. These are the gentlemen, who have won such laurels in the administration of public affairs, at whom the leader of the Oppo-

The Address
sition sneered. He has told us that the Liberal party had no policy in the late campaign. What kind of a policy did he have? A most beautiful one. He went up and down the country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific shouting for protection. Why did he confine his policy of protection to the tariff when the people of the country were calling for relief from the maladministration that was going on under my right hon. friend? What the country needed was not tariff protection but protection from poverty and despair. The record of the last ten years of administration, when my right hon. friend and his predecessor, Sir Robert Borden, were in power presents a terrible indictment. During the war the country was promised that selective conscription would be carried out but notwithstanding that pledge the Government later on came and took every man of from 19 to 22 years of age off the farm. In Stanstead county during the 1917 campaign the Borden candidate was questioned by the electors as to whether selective conscription would be carried out. He declared that he had the word of Sir Robert Borden to that effect. But what happened? On every farm of forty acres one son was taken, on every eighty acre farm two sons were conscripted, and where there was an acreage of three times forty three sons had to don the uniform. No wonder the indignant farmers of the country stormed the capital by the hundred-it was even said by the thousand-in order to try and bring Sir Robert Borden to time. Was there any need to remind the House of the unsavoury story of the overseas Canadian officer from Ontario who was promised high promotion if he could secure so many thousand soldier votes overseas for the Dominion Government? That officer carried out his task, stole 128,000 votes and was made a Brigadier General and thereupon the nauseating facts were made public.
It is perhaps not quite correct to state that the late Government had no other policy than protection. They had another plank in their platform and that was "Where was Mackenzie King during the war?" I can tell my right hon. friend where that distinguished young Canadian was. The Rockefeller foundation searched the world to obtain the best men to carry out their laudable philanthropic objects, behind which there was a fund of $200,000,000. They made a choice of Hon. Mackenzie King and sent hime to Colorado and elsewhere to settle strikes. The investigations made by Mr. King had brought millions of dollars to Canada for scientific research. The choice of Mr. King by the Rockefeller foundation was probably the greatest compliment that has ever been bestowed upon a young Canadian. But where was Arthur Meighen during the war?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I must ask
my hon. friend to refer to the hon. member in the third person.


Willis Keith Baldwin: I beg your pardon,
Mr. Speaker, for the oversight. The right hon. leader of the Opposition received his answer when he appealed to the people. Instead of a following of something like 125 members his supporters now number barely 50. During the election the right hon. gentleman's cohorts went to the province of Quebec telling the people that they would have empty dinner pails if they voted against the Meighen Government. In my own county are two or three of the largest industries in the Dominion. Representatives of these industries went about telling the working men that if they did not vote for the Meighen Government those industries would be closed down. The Dominion Textile Company is one of the industries in question, and although I do not think the management of that company meddles in politics, certain emissaries went up and down making all sorts of predictions as to what would happen unless the working classes voted right. The Union Twist Drill Company is another concern with a capitalization of three million dollars. The day before the election notice was posted up on its premises that the factory would close close down if the employees did not vote for the Meighen Government. In Compton County, the night before the election, seventeen of the local returning officers were dismissed and replaced by men from Montreal and other points and as a result of their nefarious work 1,500 ballots were destroyed. These are some of the means by which support was sought for the Meighen Government. The right hon. leader of the Opposition and the late Minister of Marine, Mr. Ballan-tyne, toured the Eastern Townships but their efforts were not very successful. The Meighen candidate in Stanstead lost his deposit by more than 700 votes and I want to tell my right hon. friend that had he been the candidate he would have suffered
The Address

a similar defeat. Neither the high protection talk nor the scandal that was sought to be disseminated had any influence against the Liberals in the province of Quebec. Although the leader of the Opposition has sneered at the Premier's following from that province I beg to assure him that in admitting the ex-Premier and the ex-Treasurer of Quebec to the Cabinet he has chosen men of eminence who will be of great assistance to the Government and the country. I want to tell the hon. gentleman, the minister sitting at the right of the Prime Minister, that there is one thing firmly established in this country, and that is the great Liberal party. Liberalism means just what it says. It means Charity, a willingness to rely on the people and the people's judgment, to obey the will of the country. It does things with an eye to the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God. It does business with an eye to the poor and the oppressed. It has a kindly feeling for the poor people. It has an eye to the great agriculturalists of whom the leader of the Agrarians (Mr. Crerar) has spoken. The right hon. leader of the Opposition and his party likened the Agrarians to Bolshevists, and I take umbrage at the accusation. I may say that I have worked fifteen hours a day and thrived on it, and I think any man who endeavours to injure the toiler of the land is making a great mistake. I want to tell the leader of the Opposition that he will never lead the government of Canada again unless he disassociates himself from the autocrats, the plutocrats, the stiff-necked chest-padded militarists of the country, who wish to domineer and dominate everything and to separate themselves from the tillers of the soil. The people trusted the former government too long, and I may tell you that you cannot force people into doing things. The former government, while not characterized as kaiserism, was indeed kaiserism, without any mistake. The leader of the Opposition has come into this House. Having been defeated in -his own constituency, he was enabled to come here by a charitable act, a gentleman being persuaded to retire in his favour, and I suppose he gave him a good figure for it. We know that he is getting in his position a good sum of money, and when he comes here he has to assail somebody, but when he assails such men as he did yesterday, he is not winning any votes. He is not intimidating the people who are in the Government now because we 
are proud of them and the country is proud of them.
I assure him that we have many things to do in this country without fighting each other. We have great potential wealth, and we have a vast country. Let us talk in this House as we would like it to appear in Hansard in future generations. The leader of the Agrarian party was provoked to say in the last days of the last parliament, that the leader of the then government was a vendor of cheap political vaudeville. Likewise the hon. member for Russell and now Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy) characterized him as the sluggoo of the Borden government. This young man no doubt has aspirations and I can see that he has reason. Eight or ten years ago, when people came to Ottawa they returned to their homes and said that the whole brains of the government was in Robert Rogers. I think that was humiliating to a young man who was cultured and able and would make a good critic in this House. He was jealous of the superior brain power that had been attributed to Rogers as compared with that of his fellow members of the Conservative party. We know that Mr. Rogers was the champion of Sir Robert Borden when he went overseas, and came back to put through the Conscription Bill. Mr. Rogers said "We must get something to win the election, and conscription may do it". They were out not to win the war, but to win the election, and it cost the country a vast amount of money to put that machinery into force.
I would not want to talk on the lines of the leader of the Opposition. We have a great country; we want the members of this House to deal with affairs in a businesslike way and we do not want the time of this House wasted on other matters. I would not have spoken except for the accusation of being one of the cohorts and I am sure there are other members in the House in the same position. I am proud to be a follower of the leader of the Government. They are kindly hearted gentlemen who can smile and smile for humanity's sake. They feel for the people and their hearts beat for the poor and the oppressed. They feel for the masses of this country. They do not believe in doing things by might but wish to do things by right.
I will not take up more time in this House but I recommend the leader of the Opposition to take the Decalogue and the

The Address
Sermon on the Mount as a chart and compass for his future life.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: Mr. Speaker, I want to be as brief as I possibly can in addressing the House, and to that end I have taken the liberty of taking a seat in the middle of the House so that I can he heard by hon. gentlemen opposite and by hon. gentlemen on either side of me, because I want to follow the example of the hon. leader of the Progressives in the House (Mr. Crerar), and devote myself to at least one of the most important questions now before the people of Canada. So determined am I to devote my time to the discussion of this question that I must forego the example set by the hon. gentlemen who preceded me, leave it to others to pay the compliments which have been paid to yourself and to hon. gentlemen who have spoken and give my time to the question that I propose to bring before you. I have every appreciation of the honour that has been done to you. I have every appreciation of the speeches of the mover and seconder. I am glad to see the lady member in the House. I shall pass other compliments, and come directly to the railway question to which the leader of Progressives devoted most of his time.
I come here, not for the first time, as one who is an absolute believer in public ownership of public utilities. I have been connected with that movement in regard to municipal and provincial affairs, and in regard to the railways and other public utilities of the country. I come from a city which to-day has the finest example of public ownership of a public utility in the street railway system of Toronto, run by the Transportation Commission appointed by the people to run the people's own road for the benefit of the people. It embodies the essential principle of public ownership, namely, that once the people own a utility, they are free to do with it what they like, whenever they like, even if their action sometimes involves, as it did recently, an increase in fares. Toronto to-day has the finest street car service in America-I say that after careful consideration-and while at present we have a seven-cent fare, the street railway is doing so well and is accumulating such reserves that the fare will soon be five cents and later on four cents, and, I think we may yet come back to the "eight tickets for a quarter."
We have something else to show in Ontario in the nature of a public utility owned by the people, and that is the magnificent
hydro-electrical development, best exemplified by its most recent instance, that of the Chippewa hydro-electrical development in connection with the Niagara river. Sir Adam Beck has been attacked; but he has made good; he is delivering the power, and the greatest electrical development in the world to-day is owned by the people of Ontario at this new power plant on the Niagara river. Only the first generator has been started; but another will be started tomorrow and each of them will deliver 55,000 h.p. The development of power may reach as much as 600,000 h.p.; it may reach 1,000,000 h.p., and the income from that may be from five to ten million dollars. This development has not had an opportunity yet to show what can be accomplished; but it has been very severely criticised, and Sir Adam Beck has been held up to the people of Canada, even by the United Farmers' Government of Ontario, as one who has been rather loose in his estimates of the cost of establishing this hydro-electric plant. I just want to ask my friend Mr. Drury, Premier of Ontario-and I have a great deal of respect for him-when he speaks about Sir Adam Beck exceeding his estimates, what about his own treasurer and the financial statement which he has brought down to the Legislative Assembly? I want to ask my friends here from the West- and I have a great deal of sympathy with their ideas, as I will show later on-what about the good roads that have been built in Ontario by the Hon. Mr. Biggs? He was to give us the cheapest and best kind of good roads throughout Ontario and to keep well within his estimates. We thought we were going to get roads for at most $2,000, or $3,000, a mile, some for $10,000 and, perhaps, a few at $20,000 a mile, but some of them have cost nearly $100,000 a mile. When criticism is being made in Ontario in regard to Sir Adam Beck's estimates for the construction of the hydroelectric plant, that criticism, if it is to be fair, must be common to all the public men of Ontario. Therefore, I say here to-day that I am proud of Sir Adam Beck and what he has done in the direction of public ownership. He has given to all the world the greatest example of the production of electrical power for the welfare of the people, the sole idea being service and not profit.
The great difference between public ownership and private ownership is that in public ownership-and this applies to railways which is the main question that
The Address

I am going to discuss to-day-the principal object in view on the part of the men administering the public utility, after paying necessary interest, is service and not profits. Heretofore the great object of the executive administering a public utility has been profits for the owners and the stockholders; but the idea in public ownership, as illustrated by Sir Adam Beck, is service at a low cost. Notwithstanding the criticism that has come from Montreal about Sir Adam Beck's proposition and his public power distribution, we have the cheapest and best service of that kind in Canada. There is nothing to equal it. I see by recent legislation that the consolidation of the power interests in Montreal is to furnish 300,000 h.p., but we in Ontario-and mainly by the leadership of the municipalities by Sir Adam Beck-will soon have over 1,000,000 h.p., and we are going to put that electrical energy into the home of every farmer in Ontario. That is what we have in view; we are working it out, and there is fair support coming from the Legislature in that direction.
Therefore, public ownership of public utilities is nothing new to us in Ontario; we are succeeding in it, and we believe in that public ownership being extended to the railway systems of Canada. We do so for several reasons, one being that we have come into possession of all these so-called bankrupt railways, because of bad administration by the companies that had them and also probably because the country was overbuilt with railways. Now that we are in possession of them, we propose to try public ownership of these publicly-owned railways in the interest of the people and outside of the question of dividends for the shareholders who formerly owned them. We came into possession of these railways, the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific, because they were not very well administered by those who had control of them. Why did the Grand Trunk fail? It failed because, while it was owned largely in Great Britain, it was administered in London. You cannot run a Canadian railway from London; it must be administered in this country. The Grand Trunk would have been a success ten, twenty years ago, if it had been administered absolutely in Canada; but it was run from London and run by directors whose main object, so far as I can gather-and I have followed my investigations rather deeply-was to play the London stock market in Grand Trunk securities. That is one reason why

the Grand Trunk has failed. The Grand Trunk, to my mind, is one of the greatest railway assets in America-and I speak after careful consideration-and it is the greatest railway asset in Canada. When you look at the strategic positions that the Grand Trunk has in this country, at Montreal, at Ottawa, along the St. Lawrence, at Toronto, London, Detroit, along the Niagara river and throughout the province of Ontario, and when you consider all the branch lines connected with it, it must be admitted it is the greatest railway asset in America.
It is undoubtedly the best road we have in Canada, and all it requires is good management. With a proper Canadian directorate it would prove a wonderful success, and it is just because it is likely to be a great success that we find the Canadian Pacific, with its headquarters in Montreal, endeavouring to head it off. I think I can see the hand of the Canadian Pacific, and that of its close associate, the Bank of Montreal, joined together in an effort to thwart the Grand Trunk, which is a real rival. What is the source of the inspiration of all this talk that we see in the Montreal papers and in some of the papers in the province of Ontario? This agitation does not come from the people or from the men who work on the roads; nor does it originate with the people who use the railways. No, it comes largely from the city of Montreal, whose newspapers seem to talk of nothing else but the Canadian Pacific railway. I have nothing to say against that railway; it is the one Canadian railway that has been a success. But it has one peculiar clause in its charter, whereby the company is bound to maintain a railway service forever. That obligation has never been imposed on any other road, but it has been imposed on the Canadian Pacific railway for a purpose, and that is, that the public shall always be assured of a service of some kind. The Canadian Pacific Railway is the creature of this Parliament and of the people of Canada. We have created it and given it the charter it holds, involving great powers. We gave it some $25,000,000 or $30,000,000 at the start, in addition to some 25,000,000 acres of land, and it has had all kinds of friendly legislation put through this House in its behalf. Altogether it has been well treated not only by Parliament but as well, by the municipalities throughout the country.
This railway, on which is imposed the responsibility of providing the people of

The Address
Canada with a service for all time, now turns against Parliament, its creator, and against the people of the country, and says: "Don't you dare to start national railways in this country or we will destroy you." That is the attitude of the Canadian Pacific railway and its friends in Montreal. They simply defy the people of Canada who created them, and warn us that we shall embark on public ownership of railways in this country only at our own peril. They tell us that public ownership is bad for the country, and that if we do not abandon the idea we shall suffer. Talking about the Canadian Pacific railway and the question of public ownership, and in connection with the references that have been made to Sir Adam Beck, there is not a radial proposition that Sir Adam Beck has started which has not been denounced by these enemies of his, and yet which would not be taken over to-morrow by President Beatty of the Canadian Pacific railway. That gentle* man knows all about them, and he would take over every radial and be glad to go to Sir Adam Beck for his power. And he will soon have to do so, because it will be necessary to have power to run the Canadian Pacific railway, and we shall have enough power in Ontario to operate every railway train from Detroit down to Ottawa. We shall soon have that power to sell outside the country, and I hope that Quebec will have a large share. That aside, however, I want to come back to the subject with which I was dealing a moment ago.
The Canadian Pacific railway, created by the Parliament and the people of Canada, now tells us, in the coun-5 p.m. try and in this House, that we must not embark on public ownership of the railways that we have. If we heed that command, what will ensue? Let me point out to the Prime Minister that if we allow the Canadian Pacific railway to put the Canadian National railway out of business, if we stand by and let Montreal dictate to us in this matter, we shall have created the greatest political tyranny that ever existed in any country, because the Canadian Pacific railway hopes to have every road in Canada, and the Montreal Gazette already informs us that we cannot run the Canadian National railways and therefore urges us to turn them over to the Canadian Pacific. What would happen if the Canadian Pacific railway got the National railway? Could any one of us remain in politics? Would any man have
a chance of getting into this House, into any provincial legislature, or into any municipal council, with the Canadian Pacific railway owning all the railroads of the country-the great political boss of the country being in Montreal, with a subordinate boss in every town and village acting as local agent of the Canadian Pacific railway? Why, Sir, political independence would cease in this country if we created such a tyranny. Yet that is the object of this great movement against public ownership of our railways.
And how is the tyranny entrenched, so far as it has gone? It has been entrenched, so far, by a marvellous device known as the "Voting Trust." I do not know whether hon. gentlemen know what a voting trust is, but I have some idea of what it signifies, and as a splendid example I might mention a weil'l-known mine in Ontario, of which sixty to seventy per cent is controlled by certain relatives. This property has been entailed, so that this mine in the future may never be interfered with, no matter what may befall the families that owned it originally. That, perhaps, is fairly within their rights; but when you entail the administration of a railway that -has the political ambitions of the Canadian Pacific railway, with its railway monopoly, and an arrangement whereby only two of * their board retire each year, there being a concentration of shareholders on the election of these two, I say you are entrenching a tyranny. The object of these men now established in the control of the Canadian Pacific railway is to retain that control, get possession of the other railways, and thereby become the great and only political boss of transportation in the country, and, incidentally, of the people's legislation as well.
Now, I appeal to hon. gentlemen in this House, whether opposite or on either side of me: are we, the people's representatives in Parliament, to assist the Canadian Pacific railway in acquiring all the railways of the country, simply because they warn us that, if we dare to administer our own roads, which have come into our hands as a result of the failures of those who had charge of them, we shall be put out of business? These railways that we have were forced upon us, and enormous sums of the people's money have been- put into them. Is it fair that this creature of the Canadian Parliament should take that position, which I am led to believe they have already taken?

The Address

I am not antagonistic to the Canadian Pacific railway. I give them credit for what they have done. The road is a well administered one, with a good executive and good equipment, and they have done a good deal for the settlement of the country. But that is their business; let them devote their attention to it. Now that we are going to run these roads as a national proposition we will ask them to co-operate with us in the work of consolidation which I trust the Government intends to embark upon. I do not wish to antagonize the Canadian Pacific. But in connection with this matter of consolidation, it is to be noted that in the city of Toronto, for instance, all the traffic that comes, say, from Chicago has to go up a one per cent grade; and the same applies to the Canadian Pacific with its Wexford grade. Now that we have public ownership it is possible to build a line across Toronto in connection with the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National railways that will reduce that grade of one per cent down to half of one per cent and by that means alone bring about a saving of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. If the Canadian Pacific want the use of our national railways for some consideration that they will give-and I know they will give something towards it-we can give them something to help in the solution of these transportation problems; for if we have public ownership we shall be willing to work with them. We do not wish to put them out of business, but they wish to put the people of Canada out of business so far as the competition of the national railways is concerned.
I think the Canadian Pacific will be well advised, and the Bank of Montreal will be well advised if they devote their attention to working out the destinies of the Canadian Pacific railway as an entity in this country, competing with the national railways, setting a pace for the national railways, if you like. They are welcome to do that, but they are not to be allowed to achieve their ambition of taking over the Grand Trunk and the Canadian National and the Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Intercolonial. They would take these roads all into their maw, but on what terms? Will the Montreal Gazette tell us on what terms? Will any gentleman in the Government who has given some attention to the claims of the Canadian Pacific tell us on what terms? Do you think they would take them over

for nothing? No; they would want also a sum at least equivalent to the deficits that these roads are now sustaining. They may say: Give us what you gave to the losing concerns and perhaps we will run these roads for you. It is true that they may now modify their offer; they want to get these roads because they think they are good business propositions. But we should keep them for ourselves and operate them for the solution of Canada's transportation problems.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou) :: May I put a question to the hon. member? Would he be good enough to tell us whether he thinks the Canadian National railways have been well operated during the last two or three years?


William Findlay Maclean: They have not had a chance; that is the whole question.
. Mr. MACDONALD: Will my hon. friend permit me a further question?


William Findlay Maclean: Certainly.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I asked my hon.
friend the simple question whether he thinks the Canadian National railways are well operated to-day. He says they have not had a chance. That is not an answer.


William Findlay Maclean: Well, they have been fairly well operated. But they have got to have a chance; the Prime Minister himself has asked for a chance to see what he can do. I am going to judge these railways and I am going to judge-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You are dodging the question.


William Findlay Maclean: No, I am not dodging the question, but my hon. friend is trying to dodge it in the interests of his friends in Montreal.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have no friends in Montreal. I want to tell my hon. friend that my friends are in Nova Scotia-those who sent me here.


William Findlay Maclean: Well, the hon. gentleman seems to have the right to speak, and he is trying to-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You are not
answering the question: you are evading it.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. gentleman has the floor, and he can speak for Nova Scotia. I am speaking, not for Nova Scotia, but for the people of Canada,

The Address


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Toronto.


William Findlay Maclean: Now then, I am going to ask the Prime Minister and I am going to ask the leader of the Progressive party in this House what they mean by co-ordination. It is a very nice word; but what the leader of the Progressive party was talking about-I notice that he is not in the Chamber at the moment-was consolidation, and that is my word. Co-ordination as affecting railway lines is putting half a dozen companies together, retaining all their separate presidents and officials and separate equipment, and keeping them bucking one against the other. I do not think the leader of the Progressive party means that; in fact a little later in his remarks he said it was consolidation into one system that he was thinking of. When the Prime Minister uses the word co-ordination, does he mean that there will be real consolidation and actual elimination of unnecessary duplications? As we have the national railways now there are several presidents, all kinds of operating chiefs, all kinds of stations everywhere, and there are a whole lot of unnecessary lines. If you want to solve the transportation problem there must be consolidation and it has got to start now. The Prime Minister intimates that as he has just come into office he wants investigation. Well, he has a first-class railway department; he has expert railway men in the service of these different companies who can give him tomorrow any advice he may require with regard to the consolidation that ought to take place. In fact, legislation has already been passed for the consolidation of these roads and can be made effective to-morrow. So that it is real consolidation I wish to see, not co-ordination in the ordinary sense of the word-and I am glad that the leader of the Progressive party does not so construe it.
Public ownership is regarded by its opponents in this country as something very bad, as something which has failed. But the real fact is-and it has been demonstrated by experience throughout the whole of this continent-that company-owned and corporation-owned railways have failed, and that is what I wish to impress upon hon. gentlemen opposite, particularly those who are members of the Government. They cannot give a single instance where corporation ownership of railroads has succeeded in the United States. That it has failed all along the line I shall prove in a few minutes by the
statements of the chief enemies of public ownership of the American roads,- because they have been very busy of late. Because of the failure of company-owned railways in the United States the roads were taken over by the Federal authorities for war purposes and were given billions of national money in order that they might be put on their feet for the service of the nation. They took that money and lost it, and now they are preparing a most awful bill of charges for submission to Congress, said to be based upon losses sustained by the roads while under Government administration during the war. So that corporation-owned railways in the United States, which have been referred to by some hon. gentlemen in their arguments against public ownership, have fallen down worse than have the corporation-owned roads in Canada. They have as I shall show, more unnecessary duplication in connection with the American roads than we have in Canada.
To show how badly they have fallen down, I am going to quote briefly one or two things that come from the railways themselves. The American roads have seen for many years what was coming, and they have prepared themselves. They are thoroughly organized; they have got possession of very influential papers in the United States. The most outstanding defender of corporation-owned roads on this continent to-day is the Saturday Evening Post, published in Philadelphia. It is a paper that appeals to all classes of the public, although it is specially devoted now to an appeal to the women and to social ideas. It has a great run of advertising and mixed up with its articles on the railway situation are pictures of handsome young women in short skirts and silk stockings. There are many hosiery advertisements in the paper, but the main purpose of the Saturday Evening Post-and I say it on my full responsibility-a paper that has more influence on public opinion, or thinks it has, probably than any other paper in the United States, is to save the corporation-owned railroads of the United States from the doom that is coming to them. The corporation roads over there have failed. How do I know they have failed? The Saturday Evening Post has assigned to a very competent writer, Mr. Herbert Quick, the writing of a series of articles on "America, An Experiment in. Transportation." The first article has a great deal in it, but I am going to read only two or three extracts
The Address

from it. Mr. Herbert Quick, the best man they have been able to put forward in defence of the corporation-owned roads, admits that the roads have been a failure, and he says they cannot be put on their feet unless two things are done-the hundreds of comparatively small railroads they have in the United States must be consolidated into twelve systems, at the most, for purposes of economy, and it will require, so he says, at least four billions of the money of the people of the United States to be placed immediately at the disposal of these companies that have failed over there. That is rather an astounding thing to come in a discussion of this kind when we are warned as a people to beware of state-owned roads. It shows what a mess the corporation-owned roads in the United States have made of themselves.


Mr. CHURCH:: Why did it take so long to co-ordinate the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific with the National Railways? The Drayton-Acworth Report recommended that nearly four years ago.


William Findlay Maclean: I could coordinate them to-morrow successfully. There are lots of railway men in this country who could do it. The question is how slow the process is to be, whether there is to be acceleration or whether there is to be great delay, and while you are delaying you are giving the Canadian Pacific Railway a chance to lay all its plans for the bedevilment of the thing when it comes on. That is why they want coordination instead of consolidation.
Let me read what Mr. Herbert Quick says as to this great corporation-owned systems in the United States that are being held up to the Canadian people as an example for us to follow:
We as a nation have wagered our very existence on it-
That is, on the success of the railways over there.
We bet our life on the fact that an agency

That is, the railways.
-an agency, not one-tenth as economical as the water transport, which the human race for thousands of years had depended upon as the basis of every complex communal life. ...could hear the burden of all the tonnage that the multiplying population could create in the heart of a continent in a new era when human wants would grow by what they fed on.
And his finding is that the railways have failed, after having dispossessed the country of the water transportation facilities they had, that they are in an awful mess

financially, that the service is bad, and that the rates are high. The whole case of the farmers of the Western United States is the same as the farmers of our West-the exorbitant railway rates of these corporation-owned roads that have failed. Mr. Quick goes on to say:
We bet our national life on that, and we built our nation in the confident expectation that we should win.
That is by the railways.
It was the nerviest gamble of all history. It will take a long time to tell whether or not we have won it. He who is sure that we have won is over-optimistic.
That is the opinion of the best spokesman and the most expensive spokesman they have from the newspaper point of view. He says that he is over-optimistic who thinks that the transportation system of the United States has succeeded. The United States has become a great country; they have roads from the Atlantic across the plains to the Pacific, but as this writer points out, they have destroyed inland water transport; they have put several canals out of business and after having done all that, this writer says that he is an over-optimistic man who says that the corporation-owned railways of the United States are solving the transportation problems of that country. There are dozens of other arguments in this article in the Saturday Evening Post of February 25, and in the succeeding article in the issue of March 4, in which this writer admits the whole thing. I ask hon. gentlemen who do not wish to take my word for it to read for themselves these articles by this special writer in this specially friendly newspaper to the corporation-owned railways of the United States, in which it is shown that the corporation-owned roads over there have failed to solve the transportation problems of that country.
Now I want to get away from the weeklies of the United States and to read what is said in a prominent monthly in that country, the Century Magazine. It has had a series of articles on the railway question in the United States, and in its issue for March asks the question; What is the matter with the railroads? That is a problem that has presented itself to this leading magazine. The article from which I am about to quote appears in this month's issue and can be found in the library by any hon. member who wishes to read it. Here is how the writer concludes his article:

The Address
The sole alternatives to private ownership and operation are Government ownership and operation. To the majority of Americans the very idea of a further governmental control is extremely distasteful, to put the matter mildly. To them it is a very real menace. Yet the menace cannot be avoided by merely singing a song of hate about it. It can be overcome and finally prevented only by some definite national plan or policy in regard to our roads, a simple thing in which for a number of years we have been sadly lacking. If such a plan means their radical re-organization, we must begin, and the sooner the better.
The railroads have to be reorganized in the United States in the opinion of this writer in the "Century Magazine" and, he says, the sooner they begin the better. Are we encouraged then to continue that system here in Canada, or are we not justified in trying to recover our position and to see what the State can do rather than what the private corporations can do in the way of public transportation? Just to show how serious the situation is and how much the transportation problem is involved in it, let me say that the same magazine has another article by Alleyne Ireland entitled " Democracy and the Human Equation." His article is devoted to the subject: Can we save constitutional government? Let me read a few words from what he says as to what is the case in the United States and is also probably the case in Canada:
Constitutional government is to-day menaced by a serious and world-wide dissatisfaction with the operation of existing political institutions. We are confronted not only by the various forms of protest, adopted by those who wish to destroy existing institutions of Government, but also by a growing sense of helplessness and exasperation among those who wish to preserve them. There is scarcely a country in the world in which public discontent with the inefficiency and with the extravagance of government has not reached the danger point.
The plain fact is that for more than a hundred years the constitutionalists in every country have been issuing and constantly renewing promissory notes for human betterment, and that the further renewal of these notes is becoming increasingly difficult.
Then the writer goes on to point out what a marvellous change has been effected in the general conditions of human life, and how all that was promised in these respects has been delivered. In the case of transportation no relief has been delivered, and the Constitutionalists do not know where to go, and that is one of the questions that concerns this writer. He asserts that the railway question is coming up in United States and it has to be settled. According to Mr. Herbert Quick four billions more of public money, a reduction of the systems to twelve and electrification are required. Mr. Quick is out for electrification, but he wants that electrification to be done by private interests.
Now I might rest my case there, as to the failure of corporation-owned railways in the United States, on the authority of the witnesses I have cited, but you can bring hundreds more of them together to bear out what I say in regard to corporation-owned railways-that they have failed in the United States and cannot be redeemed except by the expenditure of billions of public money. But the corporations over there do not likepublicownership. They want the railroads to be given to them and compensation for their administration: "Give us more money and let us run them. We will see you are charged enough freight rates, but let us run them." Now that situation has come to the United States, and I think it has come to the people in Canada. We have the roads now. Shall we try public ownership and shall we give it a fair trial? Shall that trial, in the first instance be "a consolidation" and not this more doubtful proceeding

"a co-ordination of companies." Is that what is meant by co-ordination or does it mean consolidation? I only wish the leader of the Progressive party were here now to tell me. I did not wish to interrupt him when he was speaking but if he were here he could give us a definition of a term he was constantly using, the term "co-ordination." The really important word is "consolidation" as provided by the existing statutes of Canada and I hope developments will be in that direction.	.
Now I want to go another step in discussing whether corporation-owned railways in the United States have failed, and I would like to cite another witness. President Harding made a deliverance in the United States in regard to transportation in that country. If you ask me what his deliverance was, it was that we must get back to the water-ways. The railroads had not paid and they had overcharged the farmers. He had been waited on by a most important political delegation, the so-called farmers' bloc in Washington, and the President of the United States had to admit that the corporation-owned railroads had failed. They have destroyed water transportation and the improvement of the transportation problem is to get back to the rivers, back to water transportation, better still back to the introduction of sea-going vessels to the great lakes of Canada and of the United States. This involves mak-
The Address

ing seaports on our lakes. Make Toronto a seaport as well as Montreal. Perhaps the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) will not like that, but President Harding says:	Have seaports in Lake Ontario;
have them at Toronto and at Buffalo. Have them in Lakd Erie at Cleveland and at Port Stanley, and our other harbours on the north shore. Have them in Lake Huron. Have them in Lake Michigan, and make Chicago and Milwaukee seaports. It will not cost a great deal of money for we have had the finding of the International Joint Commission on it. President Harding advocates that we make ocean ports in Lake Superior so that the grain of the western States as well as the grain of the Canadian West may be loaded into seagoing vessels on those lakes. Resort to canalization if necessary, and at the same time develop water-power to take the place of coal which is owned by the greatest monopoly in America. Let the waterpower he developed for the betterment of railway transportation. Now that is a pretty good witness to call against corporation-owned railways. I am citing now a recent delivery of the President of the United States, to the effect that he is in favour of developing this water power and using it for the electrification of the. railways.
But there has turned up in Washington within the last two or three years a new political force, and it is turning up here in Canada now. There are 65 gentlemen in the Parliament of Canada to speak for the farmers of the Canadian West. I am glad to see them, and I hope they will speak out as their leader did to-day. I have nothing against the farmers. They have the cause of Canada in regard to transportation at heart. But what about your fellows in the United States? Do you know that the farmers in the United States, this so-called bloc, control thirty-five of the senators in that country, and any day they are asked to stand up for the farmers' interest they do so. This so-called farmers' bloc in the United States know that the great corporation-owned railways of the United States have failed. They have asked the President for relief, and they are now putting themselves on record as believing that the only relief they can give to the farmers of the United States must come through public ownership, waterways and the generation of electrical energy, to take the place of the coal monopoly in the United States.

Let me give an outstanding illustration of what transportation by sea-going vessels means compared to railways, and a wonderful illustration has come out recently in the United States. They spent millions of dollars in the development of the fisheries of Alaska, and the herring fisheries in Alaska are the equal of any in the world, but do you know what it cost to take a barrel of herring from Alaska to New York by rail? It cost $5 a barrel to take it to New York for distribution to the farmers of the United States in the eastern section where there is a large consumption of fish. A man went into a store to buy some of these fish, and inquired, " How much are they worth a barrel?" the merchant- answered " So much, plus $5 for transportation." The gentleman went into another fish store, and asked the price of a barrel of herring, and was quoted a much lower figure. He said, "How can you get them so much cheaper than another dealer?" He says, " We can get all herring caught in the fisheries of Scotland delivered into New York at 50 cents a barrel." That is 50 cents a barrel as against $5 a barrel for fish sent from Alaska. Has not the President of the United States some reason for finding that corporation-owned railways have failed? Have not the farmers of the United States some reason for coming back to the waterways and government control of railways, rather than that corporation control should continue?
Now the farmers of the United States are demanding relief and our farmers here are demanding relief. I believe that the whole of the farmers, not only of Western Canada, but the farmers of Ontario, are demanding relief. We have our transportation problem. We have high traffic charges and have to meet them. If there can be an improvement by improved canalization, by generation of electrical energy in connection with the canalization and the river powers we have, why not take them over? But the province of Quebec says "Oh, you in Ontario, must not generate public power, and you must' not be a party to co-operating with the United States in generating public power. You must cease doing that." But we say we do intend to generate that power as the United States are doing, and we intend to use it for the electrification of railways.
Let me speak about the electrification of railways. We have spent, I do not know how much, in the way of bringing American coal into this country to run our rail-

ways. Why not run our railways by the electrical service supplied by water-power on our Canadian rivers? In Ontario we have more than we need. The Niagara and St. Lawrence will move every train from Detroit to away below Quebec. Right here to the south of us, on the Ontario side we have the St. Lawrence river at .Cornwall, with a possibility of development there near Cornwall island. About 6 or 8 or 12 years ago a very rich and influential American company called the Aluminum Company came to us in the Railway Committee, and asked us to give them a charter to take over that great water-power on the St. Lawrence near Cornwall. They pretty nearly had it, but we made opposition to it and we have it now. There is enough power in the St. Lawrence in front of us here, in the Niagara river and in the Ottawa river to run every train in Canada from the Atlantic clean up to Port Arthur, and there are wonderful powers west of Port Arthur on the Saskatchewan that can be developed. We have had fine engineers in this country who have advocated the canalization of our country from lake Superior to the foot of the Rocky mountains, and that may be one of your great reliefs in the West. You will get abundance of water-power there to move your traffic. And why do they fear-why does the Canadian Pacific Railway fear- the electrification of railways? A new instrument is put in the hands of the people, when they control the water-power and the electrical energy, and I believe that is what President Harding has in view. That is what we have in view in this country-that if the country controls the water-power that runs the railway, and if a corporation road has to buy it- and I hope the Canadian Pacific Railway will be one of those-we will be able to put the blocks to them, to use a rough term, and we will be able to make them treat the public fairly. Who owns the coal of the United States that we have had to pay such a high price for? It is owned by the railways. They control the coal supply of the United States largely, and they want to control our water-powers. This Aluminum Company, one of the greatest metal trusts in the world, was in Ottawa a few years ago, and tried to grab the water-powers on the St. Lawrence, and the Prime Minister of Quebec says "Oh, I have a great dread of the Americans coming into our country and getting hold of our water-powers. I do not want to see them get
them." But I know that if the President and men like the President get some of that electrical energy generated by that water-power, it will be used fairly. I am not afraid of what he will do with these powers. He will use them fairly. But the province of Quebec says "No, we do not want the President of the United States to invade this country. We do not believe in public ownership." 'Still they have taken over the liquor business, and are going to pay $10,000,000 of their debt by the profits from it. Perhaps they had better try to develop the water-powers of Quebec. That province is rich in water-powers, and they have been developed to some extent there. They have established factories; they have not done much with their electrical power for the farmers, but they have done well, they have an immense store of electrical energy in Quebec, and they can use that for the control of these railway rates. With electrical energy developed from the rivers of Quebec, every railroad running from the Ottawa river down to the Maritime Provinces can be run and, perhaps, at a lower cost than with coal produced in the Maritime Provinces. If you are looking for the cheapest possible transportation and you can get it by water-power, why not have it?
It is rather an unusal thing, after hearing all that we have heard about transportation in the United States, to have someone tell this House that corporation-owned railways in the United States have failed; but they failed and corporation-owned railways in Canada have failed likewise. The railways in the United States are not publicly-owned, whereas, our national railways are, and we are going to keep them. We are going to try them out to see what relief they will give to the people of this country, and we are going to keep Sir Adam Beck where he is generating hydro-electrical power in Ontario for the benefit of the people.
I regret that the organized farmers of Ontario have started out to crucify Sir Adam Beck because he is generating tremendous quantities of electrical power in that province for the service of the people. I do not say that hon. gentlemen here take that view of the matter; but that is largely the direction in which the discussion is going in Ontario to-day, where there is a man who has surpassed the President of the United States in generating an immense quantity of water-power for purposes of transportation. I hope
The Address

hon. gentlemen from the West, and especially the new western members-we have all free transportation on the railways-will some Saturday or even some Sunday visit Niagara Falls and see the Chippewa electrical development plant that Sir Adam Beck has built on the Niagara river right at the falls. They will see the greatest triumph of Canadian engineering, surpassing anything ever before achieved by any engineers in the world in the way of electrical development. The generators were made in Toronto and the work was done largely by Canadian workmen. We have that electrical development in the province of Ontario, and at the very time of its arriving and its going to make good, there is a sudden and suspicious movement developing in this country, a movement directed mainly by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, threatening us and threatening the people of Canada. If you go into the ownership of railroads for your relief, have a care; we will see after you! That is the menace in this country. Not only has there been failure in the United States and failure in Canada, and great loss of money in railroads, but we are being told in the most defiant way that we must not indulge in public ownership. Hands off! Leave it to us! We will save it! I do not think they will.
I want to take up the question of what we can do to solve the transportation problem that faces us; and if you, Mr. Speaker, will call it six o'clock, and the House will give me half an hour after recess, I will go into that matter then.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Findlay Maclean: Before the House rose at six o'clock I was about to deal with a question that has come up in this House and in the press in connection with transportation, namely, the farmers' grievance respecting marketing. This matter was referred to by the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Crerar) this afternoon, and I desire to make it clear, if possible, or at least to throw some light on the question. Now, the farmers of Canada as well as the farmers of the United States have a substantial grievance in connection with transportation. They complain, among other things, that when they have pretty

well got rid of their grain the price advances, and they want to sell at the higher rather than at the lower price. Some of the farmers here have been led to believe that the railway charges were the main cause of this loss to them. The farmer will certainly get relief from transportation charges, but he will get that relief in the way suggested by my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and that is by adopting the plan that is followed in the United States. There is a very appropriate expression current in the United States in regard to marketing, and that is the phrase "orderly marketing." Now what does that mean? It means, largely, just what we had in this country in connection with the Wheat Board, which was undoubtedly successful in its operation during the war. That board kept prices pretty well up, and all the grain was sold and the money pooled, and when the season was over the proceeds were fairly divided; and flour and milling companies who had filled their elevators when the market was low were not able to take advantage of the condition of the market, nor were the speculators in a position to do so. Some system like that, and in accordance with the plan now in effect in the way of orderly marketing in the United States, should be followed here. That orderly marketing will have to be backed in Canada, as it has been backed in the United States, by the credit of the Government. We require two things; better railway management, or, in other words, national ownership of railways; and government credit behind some system of orderly marketing of grain and live stock products.
I shall now deal with the question which I was considering before dinner, as to what the Government ought to do at the present time. They have told us that they intend to co-ordinate the railways. Now, what do they mean by co-ordination? Do they mean consolidation, and all that that signifies, as mentioned by the leader of the Progressive party? Or does co-ordination, as the Government uses the word, mean that the Canadian National system, comprising the Intercolonial, the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Grand Trunk, the Transcontinental, and other roads, is to be operated as five different systems, with five presidents, five executives, and, as in some places, like Vancouver, for instance, with two sets of stations, entailing a large expense? How does my hon. friend from Marquette construe the word "co-ordination " in this connec-

The Address
tion? When he used the word, did he mean the separate management I have just suggested, or did he mean amalgamation, with the economies resultant therefrom? This would go a long way in the direction of reducing traffic charges, which is exactly what the people want. Is that what he means?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Certainly, that is what
I mean.


Mr MACLEAN (York) :: If that is also the Prime Minister's meaning I will accept it. I do not ask him to say whether or not he means that, but that is the issue before the people of Canada to-day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) gives his statement to the House he will make quite clear what is meant in this respect. In the meantime, if it will help to clear my hon. friend's mind, I may say that it is the intention of the Government to have one board of directors that will manage the entire system in a manner that will effect economies and further efficiency very much in accord with what he has in view.


William Findlay Maclean: I hope my hon. friend means just what he says. If not, there will be an opportunity later on to move an amendment-we have lots of opportunities to submit amendments; I have been under the impression that we were limited to one amendment in this debate, but that is not so, it is on going into Supply that we are limited to one amendment. Now, notwithstanding what any of us may say as regards the interpretation of the word "co-ordination," we have the statutes of Canada to which we may turn. Here is Chapter 13 of 1919, the Act Incorporating the Canadian National Railway Company. That Act was passed mainly on the strength of our taking over the Canadian Northern and in view of the fact that we had the Intercolonial and other Government roads, and in sections 11 and 12 it clearly sets out what the Government can do. So that it does not require any considerable inquiry to find out what ought to be done in this respect; the man who assumes the responsibility of carrying on the government of this country must be ready to act, even though he cannot obtain counsel outside. It is all very well to make1 inquiries, and probably the leader of the House is within his rights in making full investigation; and the last Government was quoted in that respect this afternoon in connection with the tariff; but the best way to deal with a question is to
deal with it. The Greeks had a very good proverb: to the effect that to play upon the lyre or the harp you must play upon it. So, to deal with this railway question you do not have to make an inquiry so much as you have to consolidate the railways. You might make inquiries that would last until doomsday and not get anywhere. The Prime Minister has taken a responsible position in this country, just as my hon. friend from Marquette has assumed the responsibility of leading a party in this House; and I want to tell that hon. gentleman (Mr. Crerar) without being at all offensive, what I think of his position. He is the leader of a party in this House, the leader of an opposition, and apparently he has contracted himself, in a way, out of the liability of the recognized leader of the Opposition. Here is a new precedent: Parliament has for the first time recognized by statute the position of leader of the Opposition. Heretofore the leader of the Opposition had a recognized status both in British and in Canadian politics, a status defined not by legislation but by convention. At any rate, I do not like the idea of anybody in this House escaping a responsibility, especially if he is a leader of an opposition. The responsibility is on him just as it is on the Prime Minister to find out what ought to be done with regard to such questions as the consolidation of the railways of this country. I have defined my position, and I hope to get a clear statement from the Minister of Railways, when we hear from him, as to what is proposed to be done. We want more light on this thing. I sincerely hope that before this debate concludes there will be a response to our insistence upon knowing what is meant by this promise of co-ordination and what the Government intends to do with regard to the statute passed by Parliament two years ago providing for these very things. The duty of the Government is not to get behind some inquiry which they may propose to make; it is to carry out this statute or amend it so that this necessary consolidation may be effected.	.
Now, I am going to pass from that to a summary of what I think the Government ought to do. First, of course, they ought to consolidate the railways. The next thing they ought to do-it has never been done in this country, but if it is not done we shall find ourselves where the President of the United States has landed and where the farmers of the United States have landed-is to make the railway services
The Address

complementary of the water services of the country so that the two will work together. In the United States they have practically murdered water competition; they have bought up all the steamboat lines and all the wharves; they have put the steamship lines out of business. One paper, from which I read this afternoon and which apologizes for the conditions with respect to railways, expresses regret that the boats have gone out of business. At great cost we have built up a system of government ships; the services carried on by these must be made complementary of our railway services and of our other waterway systems. We may have to establish seaports on the lakes as far up as Port Arthur, if necessary, in order to bring about a solution of this transportation problem. Some years ago, after a good deal of agitation in which I myself took some little part, the railways were compelled to reduce their freight rates, but their friends the steamship companies had effected a combine and no sooner were the railways forced to reduce their rates than the steamship lines put on a corresponding increase. To effect consolidation you must make the canals, the railway, the inland water services, and the ocean-going steamship services, complementary one of the other. If you are canalizing the rivers and improving the lakes you must let the steamships get up into lake Superior. Electrification of the railways is absolutely necessary, and must be controlled and maintained by the people as a public service. The proposal is to spend hundreds of millions upon this international waterway scheme; let us, therefore, keep it in the people's hands. We want to back up Sir Adam Beck in what he is doing in Ontario in the development of water-powers.
I want to tell my hon. friend the Prime Minister what I think his Minister of Railways ought to do, right away, toward consolidation. A reference to the time table of the Canadian National Railways will show that the different lines are all mapped therein-Canadian Northern, Grand Trunk Pacific, Transcontinental, Intercolonial and other roads. If you look at the map you will see where the Canadian Northern runs northwesterly from lower Ontario to lake Nipigon. At Long lake, which is thirty miles from the Transcontinental, the line dips down in a southwesterly direction and proceeds to Port Arthur and Fort William. Now, if the Minister really wants to effect this consolidation, this amalgamation, let

him come down to the House and tell hon. gentlemen from the West that nobody is going to stop him from building this projected thirty miles and shortening the distance by one hundred miles between Manitoba and points east. Do you know that the Act to which I have referred enables the Minister of Railways of his own motion to have this thirty miles built and to improve the grades? The great feature of the Transcontinental and the Canadian Northern is the improvement effected in the grades; they are away ahead of the old Grand Trunk and of the Canadian Pacific.
I wish just here to make some further reference to a point I mentioned this afternoon with regard to grades. Toronto is a great railway centre. A large part of the traffic of the Grand Trunk originates in Chicago and must pass through Toronto, and it all has to go over a one per cent grade from Scarborough. The same applies to the Canadian Pacific. The Minister of Railways has engineers available who have made surveys; their draughtsmen have plans for the changing of that one per cent grade in Toronto, of the Canadian Pacific as well as of the Grand Trunk, to a half per cent grade. I was speaking the other day to Mr. McGuigan, who is an authority on Grand Trunk affairs, and he said:	If we had that reduction of grade,
as I told the late Mr. Hays, we would do with one engine and two men what now requires eight engines and sixteen men. Now that can be effected in the city of Toronto. And if the Minister of Railways cannot get the information in his department, and cares to ask me, I think I can show him how effective that one thing would be in helping to solve the transportation difficulties of this country. My proposal would be a temporary one, just for the time being, but it could be put in operation within eight weeks. There are four miles of a double track in a level country, but there is a long wooden trestle to be built, at no great cost, and if this were built it would effect a saving that would mean hundreds of thousands of dollars in the reduction of freight rates on traffic that goes through Toronto alone. There are cases like that all over the country. As the Century Magazine said, you have two stations in Vancouver, and another one for an American road, when half a station would be enough for all the railroad business of that territory. Think of it '*-three railway stations and three equipments to do the railway business of

The Address
Vancouver. This American magazine, after speaking of this Vancouver duplication, says, "Do not think we have not got any duplication in the United States," and then it goes on to speak of duplication in the city of Spokane and all over the United States. We have duplication all over this country that makes you sick when you see it; we have station after station duplicated, at great expense, and line after line that could be cut out or a substitute put in that would give better service for half the money. Economies can be effected all over. Are these economies to be effected by hon. gentlemen opposite? 

and I ask that with all respect. They have been the apostles of economy in this country. Let me tell them a story about an election speech down in Glengarry. There was a candidate there, Mr. Rory McLennan-I remember when he sat in this House. A lawyer got up to make a speech for Rory. He said, "We have a fine candidate in Mr. Rory McLennan. We all think a lot of him. There is not one of us would not take off his coat and fight for him." A Highland Scotchman in the audience, hearing that, ran down the aisle and taking off his coat shouted, "Here, Mister, now's your chance." I say to hon. gentlemen opposite, "Now's your chance." If you want to effect economies you can build this cut-off of thirty miles at Long lake, and the little cut-off I have spoken of at Toronto, as a start. I hope we shall hear from the Minister of Railways about these matters when he rises to speak, but in the meantime I say, now is the time to consolidate the railways. And not the railways only, for remember we have gone a long way further than that in the matter of public ownership. We have now not only the national railways, but we have a system of national telegraphs, for which we have paid dearly, but it is a fine system nevertheless; we have also got a national money order system, a national express system, and a national postal system. All these services can be co-ordinated and great improvements made in them right away. Get all these services together, and then go to the people of Canada and say: Boys, we have a national telegraph company; let us see that our people use it; we have a national money order system, and a national system of express, let us see that our people use that. That is what the people want to hear when this railway question is up. That is what the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and the gentlemen behind him must insist
on if they want relief in the matter of freight charges.
There is another thing, and now I wish to appeal especially to the West. Now that you have got national railways, national telegraphs, national express, and a national money order business, and you have them all now in every station in the West as we have in the East, consolidate them in one building and make them the centre of the community. If you want to work out your own salvation, build, at your own expense if you have to, a little community centre large enough for the village or town or city and use that for the service of the public. Put these services in there. Perhaps you could also put a drug service in there too..


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not
mean the kind hon. gentlemen have in mind. The war is over and regeneration must take place in this country the same as everywhere else, and you can begin regeneration with a local centre, and the way to do it is to get all these services together in one building. You can do a lot of things like that in the West. Just put up one little building as the community centre, and invite the Government to put the national express, the national telegraph, the national money order and railway business there, and let the postmaster go after the freight and see that the national railways get it, as well as their share of the telegraph and express business.
There is something else that can be done. You can back up the good roads, and make the good roads in your respective provinces complementary of the national system of transportation. What has thrown the American railroads into consternation more than anything else is the competition of the good roads and the motor truck. The railways of the United States are deploring the fact that the competition of the good roads and the motor truck has almost put them out of business. The motor truck travelling over the good roads has this marvellous advantage over the railways, that for short distances it is a handling of freight and passengers from door to door, with no intervening cartage agent, or street car journey, or anything of that kind. The motor truck goes from door to door and is playing the very dickens with the American system of railways. They do not know how to meet this competition, and they may have to go into a receivership for
The Address

that reason alone. We must consolidate our railway service with all these other services if we want to get improved transportation, and I hope that we are going to get something of that kind now, but the beginning of it must be action on the part of the Government and our demand in this House for that action.
I have practically closed the argument that I have endeavoured to present to the House this afternoon, namely, that the fundamental problem in the regeneration of our country to-day, after the great war, is the improvement of our transportation to bring relief to our people who are so anxiously seeking it in that direction. And there is a way to do it, now that we own five of the railways, now that we own steamships, and now that we own telegraph and express services. But we have to go after the business; we have got to canvass for business just the same as the privately owned railways do. And that is what the Canadian Pacifi.c Railway Company fears will happen. As I said I have no grievance against the Canadian Pacific railway except this-that it will not solve the transportation problem for us. As a private corporation it cannot do that; and we are not going to allow them to try, notwithstanding the advice of the Montreal Gazette. Within the past week the Montreal Gazette has told the Government to get rid of these national railways1-put them on the scrap heap or give them away. Is that the view of the people of Canada or of the members of this House? I do not think so. We are going to try and work out some improvement, and we expect that improvement to come from the new Government following uip legislation already on the statute books. We will expect it most of all from the new Minister of Railways; and we will be only too glad to welcome the fact that the Government, now that the opportunity has come to it, is going to consolidate all these railroads and steamships that we now possess in order to secure lower traffic charges in Canada.
Just one word more. Much was said in the speeches of yesterday-and they were good speeches-but I think the leader of the Progressives, in the effort he made this afternoon, endeavoured to bring the situation right home to the people and to the members of the House. It is a fine thing to make an exhibition of swordsmanship such as we had yesterday between the two leaders, a fine thing to make the respective groups of followers cheer, but that is not dealing with

public questions. We want these questions taken up and dealt with from the transportation point of view. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) endeavoured to do that this afternoon, and in my humble way I have followed in the same direction, and I am going to try and do a little more later on. As I have already stated, during my election campaign the electors indicated their preference for a discussion of the transportation question and the subject of the consolidation of our railroads. We have these railroads now and it is our duty to make a success of them as far as we can. I want to tell the leader of the Government that there is a newspaper in Toronto called the Globe and it is taking up these questions, while Montreal papers such as the Gazette and the Star are talking in an altogether different way. The people all over Ontario are thinking in terms of public ownership, but a large number of the newspapers of this country are passing away from public ownership, and are supporting corporation ownership of our railways. Such a policy as that will not succeed.
Before resuming my seat I must apologise to hon. members for the time I have occupied, but I have spoken at length in order to ventilate what I deem to be a more important view of the transportation questions of Canada than has hitherto been expressed.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon) :: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I fully appreciate the privilege accorded to me of having the opportunity to address the House at this particular time. I highly appreciate the dignity and importance of this, the Parliament of Canada, and I only hope that I may be able, in my small way, to maintain its past traditions and that I may be found worthy of the place which I occupy in this Chamber.
In commencing I desire to compliment you, Mr. Speaker, on your elevation to the commanding position of First Commoner. Your high character and great attainments as a public man are not unknown even in the remotest parts of this great Dominion of ours, and I am sure that you will brilliantly adorn the high position to which you have been promoted. I listened with a great deal of attention yesterday to the excellent speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Address. I must compliment Mr. McMurray, who belongs to the same province as myself, upon the ability which characterized his speech, and I am sure that he fully maintained the reputation

The Address
which he enjoys in the west as a public speaker.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert Forke: I am sorry to have transgressed the rules. I should have alluded to my hon. friend as the hon. member for North Winnipeg. Perhaps it would be only right for me to say that I am a new member and therefore unfamiliar with the procedure of this House. For that reason I would ask the indulgence of hon. members, and I can assure them that I will endeavour as quickly as I can to conform to Parliamentary methods and usages.
I was sorry that I was unable to follow the speech of the hon. member who seconded the Address. I have, however, read a short synopsis of that speech translated into English and have therefore familiarized myself to a certain extent with the views which he expressed. From the style of his speech and the sentiments which he uttered I should deem him to be an eloquent and able speaker. It is a matter of deep regret to me that I am unable to understand the French language. Let me say that were I a young man nothing would give me greater pleasure than to begin the study of that tongue and to acquire such a mastery of it as would enable me to follow the speeches of hon. members from Quebec when they use the language of old France.
I listened with a great deal of attention to the speeches that were made yesterday by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). The former has certainly lost none of his old-time ability, and he can still drive with rapier-like thrusts at the enemy across the way. I am one of those who admire the ability of the right hon. member. He is a dweller in our province, and although we do not agree with his political opinions we are proud of his ability and glad to see him once more in Parliament.
I read very carefully the Speech from the Throne, and I was glad to observe that a good many of the things for which we have been hoping were promised therein. I trust the promises will come to fruition and that some day we shall reap the harvest that has been sown. For one thing we have been promised wider markets. The leader of the Opposition yesterday in his speech ridiculed the idea of reciprocity with the United States. I am sorry to observe that attitude on his part because in the West it is something unusual to find such a brand of opinion-as will be recognized from what happened there during
the recent elections. I can assure the House that one of the great problems that we have to meet in the West to-day is the getting of wider markets for farm products. The question has been asked:	Of what
advantage would the United States markets be to the western farmer? Let me tell the House that last fall and during the early part of the winter, notwithstanding the emergency tariff, trainload after trainload of cattle left the St. Boniface stock yards, paid the American duty of 30 per cent and were taken to Chicago and St. Paul and there sold at a profit over what those cattle could have realized at Winnipeg. What would have happened had there been no outlet for that trade, with the cattle market in such a depressed condition? Had there been no market in the country to the south to take our surplus at that particular time our cattle would have been unsaleable during those fall months. So that, you see, even with the 30 per cent duty, that American market at the present time has been a great advantage to us in respect to the marketing of our cattle.
Then we have a mention of freight rates in the Speech from the Throne, and with this I shall deal a little later on. We need relief in that respect. I have listened with a great deal of attention to the speech of the hon. member, (Mr. Maclean, York) who preceded me. I should like to tell him that I am in thorough accord with him as far as the consolidation of the National railways is concerned, and I think he will get the support of this portion of the House in that policy. I am a new member of this Chamber, and do not know the position of the different members in the House very well yet, but I could not help wondering to what division the hon. gentleman who has just spoken belongs.


William Findlay Maclean: I am a public rights man, and I hope you are too.


Robert Forke: I intend, to be, and I say so, with all due respect to the remarks the hon. gentleman has made, and I do not say it in any carping or criticising spirit. Some reference was made in the Speech from the Throne to the tariff. I agree with the leader of the Opposition, the right hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Meighen) in some of the criticisms he made in this respect. The reference to the tariff in the Speech may mean a great deal or it may mean very little. I have an optimistic temperament, and I have no doubt the Government will implement its promises,
The Address

and that we are to have substantial reductions in the tariff, more especially in the matter of agricultural implements and the materials we need in agriculture. If we do not get relief in this way, there is going to be disappointment in the West, and, more than that, there is going to be disaster unless some remedy is brought forward to meet conditions as they exist at the present time. The prairie provinces are in need of immediate relief; the situation out there is not good, and no one can face the circumstances without realizing that some relief must be afforded. We are aware of the fact that the climatic conditions have been unfavourable for a number of years, but anyone who knows the situation will realize that the overhead expenses of agriculture at the present time are far and away out of all proportion to the va}ue of the crops that are being harvested. Now, that sort of thing cannot continue; it must come to an end; you cannot carry on business year after year if the balance is on the wrong side of the ledger. Something will have to be done to remedy those conditions. The prosperity of these provinces depends entirely upon their natural resources, and the greatest of those natural resources is that three or four inches or more of fertile soil that covers the land from eastern Manitoba to the foot of the Rocky Mountains. This land must be developed, can be developed and will be developed if right conditions prevail and right opportunities are afforded to the cultivators of that soil. I believe the economic conditions can be made, will be made and ought to be made, that will afford to those people who are living out there and developing that country an opportunity to make a living and enjoy more of the comforts and decencies of modern civilization. The constituency of Brandon, which I have the honour to represent, is just about one half urban and one half rural; and yet, after all, we are all in the same bok, city, town, and country are dependent upon agriculture. The prosperity of one is the prosperity of the other, and, as I said before, we are all in the same box. Not only that, but I think the people in the House will recognize the fact that if the manufacturing centres, such as Brantford, Toronto, and Hamilton, are going to send their implements out there and are going to get paid for them, they will have to depend to a very large extent upon the prosperity of the western provinces. So that you will see, Mr. 
Speaker, and hon. members, our interests are one; you cannot divide them. The Prairie provinces come close to the general interests of the Dominion of Canada, and we must have immediate relief.
We have listened to a very interesting address on the railway problem, and there is no doubt that this is one of the great problems we have to meet at the present time-perhaps the most pressing problem of all. We have on the one side excessive freight rates, on the other side large deficits on Canadian national railways year by year. How are we going to overcome the difficulties of the situation? Again, let me repeat here that I am in thorough accord with the consolidation of all the government-owned railways, to be worked as one system. In regard to the deficits on the national railways, I would like to say that I have had the privilege and opportunity of travelling on those lines to some extent during the last year, and I may say that there is a very great difference in the spirit, the movement and the arrangement of those lines from that which prevailed at one time. I noticed a different spirit among the employees and a different spirit in the public, who realize that this is their property, and that they have an interest in its development and prosperity. When speaking to a prominent Canadian Pacific railwayman the other day, he said that last year was the first year that they ever fully realized that they had a great competing system in the Canadian National Railways. Speaking to a mine owner in Drumheller, he made the statement also that the Canadian National Railways were out after business, and were looking after the business of the country in a way that was never done before. I can see daylight ahead. I can see hope in the future. We have a valuable property and we are going to maintain that property, develop it and keep it, and the day will come when we will be proud to have it.
Just a word in connection with freight rates. There is an old railway maxim that the rates should be made all that traffic will bear. I do not think it would be very difficult to prove at the present time that we have overstepped the mark, and that the rates are a great deal higher than the traffic will bear. It seems almost presumptuous that a layman should attempt to criticise railway management, and yet I think it is perfectly evident to anyone who knows the situation that freight is not being carried, business is not being

The Address
done, because it is not profitable to do it. Of course, the farmers in the West have to ship their wheat, and that, perhaps, is one reason why the rates in that respect can be kept up. But I was told the other day that in British Columbia a great many lumber mills were shut down a year ago because the business did not pay, they could not afford to sell lumber and pay the freight. Not only that, but in those mills that were running they were burning a great deal of stuff that could have been sawn up and used as building material for the farmers on the prairies had the freights been lower. Now it seems to me a reasonable proposition that it would have paid those railways to carry that stuff at a little lower rate, rather than have men thrown idle and wheels not moving at all. We have that situation, a most difficult situation-high freight rates and large deficits in railway operations. But whatever may be done, we cannot have freight rates any longer strangling industry and making agriculture impossible in this Dominion of ours.
I would like to say just a few words regarding taxation and immigration. We know that our taxes are very high at the present time. I am not going to enter into any discussion nor offer any criticism as regards the way in which this high taxation has come about. We are ail acquainted with the facts; we know how our Dominion taxation has been increased. We have gone through a long and terrible war and through sorrow, suffering and great financial loss. The country has great indebtedness which will have to be met, which we are bound in honour to pay. As regards the provinces, they have been anxious to develop their territories; they have helped to build good roads, they have given aid for public works. And our municipal corporations and our rural districts also have tried to build roads throughout their territories, thus bringing the farms into closer communication with industrial centres and marketing points. Perhaps, we might criticise a little just how this was done and why it was done at this particular time, but I will not enter into that now. The debts have been incurred. Besides other questions, we have the question of education which is one of vast importance in the Prairie provinces and, I believe, also throughout the rest of this Dominion. For this, we are incurring large expenditures of money, money which we are ready to pay, but which we find a difficulty in getting. These expenditures are going to continue, and as many of the debts which we have incurred are fixed charges, we can look forward to the years to come, knowing that our taxation is not going to become any lighter.
How are we going to meet the difficulty? The different speakers have spoken about immigration. Double your population, they say, and you will have no need of these taxes. Well, not exactly, but you are going to go a long ways towards reducing taxation. Double your immigration and you are going to help to solve your railway difficulty and your taxation difficulty; you will create traffic for the railways and lighten the burden all along the line. But then it might be asked again: Why increase your population When you find dissatisfaction and discontent amongst the people who are living here at the present time? The question is all one of remuneration. The farmers out on the prairies have a good deal of education handed out to them as to how they can improve their position; but let me tell the House that the first thing which will help to stop the flow from the country to the town is higher remuneration for the people Who are engaged in agriculture. We are living in a day when education is. easily got almost anywhere. We find our young people out on the farms becoming well educated, knowing w'hat conditions are in city, town and country; and, knowing the conditions, they make their choice, and they flock where the better living is to be got and where, perhaps, the conveniences and comforts of life may be more easily obtained. Until opportunities are equalized as between country and city life, we are going to have that flow towards the city of which we complain so much. I believe those conditions can be improved; that we can arrest that flow if we have the right country conditions. I know very well that if any one wishes to make a vast amount of money, he is never going to make it in 9 p.m. agricultural life. We all know that. But there are in life some things that are of greater consequence than money, and when we have found a congenial occupation,' When we have found a fair remuneration, when he have found independence of livelihood and conditions to suit us, that is wealth and all the wealth that anyone will want. That state of things can be brought about in rural life, and we are going to get it if we get proper economic conditions. I believe in that way alone we shall solve our rural problem. I know,
The Address

conditions at the present time are to a certain extent abnormal; that we are suffering in the West, in some sections at least, as I said before, from climatic conditions. But we have also certain economic evils that we believe can be remedied and will be remedied. I believe many of the conditions on the farm life are going to be improved in this way. The large farms on the western prairies are going to disappear, and we are going to have smaller farms. We are going to have more intensive cultivation and closer community centres, and a great many of the disadvantages of rural life are going to disappear.
What does the Government intend to do as regards this question of immigration? We need the people, but we want the right kind of people. There are in the British Islands, on the continent of Europe, more especially in Scandinavia and perhaps in some other countries, people who are suited to the land, who have been born and bred to that calling, and who would make the very best of citizens if we could get them to come out to Canada. I believe that, notwithstanding all our disadvantages, there are people over there with land hunger who would like to come out to Canada and have a piece of land that they could call their own, who would make the very best of settlers if we could get them to come to this country. We have had a large number of immigrants from eastern Europe. I would not be ready to condemn those people offhand, I know many of them who have made good; but I would not like to see a very large inrush from that portion of Europe at the present time. Perhaps most hon. members are aware of the fact that many of these people from eastern Europe are, in the second generation, taking the highest places in our educational institutions, in the West at least, and they are going to make good citizens. Those of us who are of French or Anglo-Saxon extraction will have to look to our laurels or we shall find many of those people enjoying the highest positions in the land, and if they are worthy of them they have a right to them.
What is the Government going to do to stop this trek from the land to the city? I have tried to point out what I believe to be, in part at least, a solution of that problem. We do not, however, want immigrants from the manufacturing towns of Great Britain. Perhaps, this is a hard thing to say; but I have had some experience in immigration work, and if you get

artisans from the banks of the Clyde or factory workers from the towns, when they come to Canada they will inevitably drift to the cities. We have plenty of those people in this country now. I have no fault to find with them, but when we want those people, we can soon get them. I have no hope of taking the city born-and-bred man and woman and turning them out to make a livelihood on the land. They are going to have an up-hill fight and, perhaps, they will never achieve any success. As I said before, they are most likely to drift back to the cities and help to build up a city population greater than is necessary.
We are passing through difficult times, and we must use our best endeavours to pass through them successfully. We have a great new country and I have riot lost faith in this land of wide horizons. We have our difficulties in the West; but it is a great land, and during the last thirty or forty years, notwithstanding all our difficulties, there have been many happy homes and happy households out on those prairie lands, and we are going to have them in the future. We have not lost faith in our country. Canada is a great land and we do not want a divided country. We do not want any "East" and we do not want any "West"; we want one Canada. We need to get together, forgetting disrupting differences, and finding our own prosperity in the common good and in the development of our country. I shall close with a quotation from Viscount Bryce, who said:
Canada is well able, by the character of her people, by their intelligence and law-abiding habits, to face whatever problems the future may bring, finding remedies for such defects as may have disclosed themselves in her government, and making material prosperity the basis of an enlightened and pacific civilisation.


Mr. ALFRED SPEARMAN (Red Deer) :: Mr. Speaker, it is with a good deal of trepidation that I rise to take part in this debate, because, like the hon. gentleman who preceded me, I am inexperienced in public speaking and lack of knowledge of the forms, the procedure, and the traditions of the House. I therefore request your indulgence, Sir, if I err in any way, as I intend-we all intend, no doubt,-to bring myself in harmony with the rules of the House and in harmony with the spirit and ancient traditions of Parliament, while still holding to my own principles and my own ideas.

The Address
We have come here, a great many of us, as new members, in the hope of being able to impart some of the ideas which have been growing in our minds through the past years, and also in the hope that we may be able to assist in bringing about better conditions in this country. We have not come here in any spirit of hostility or of antagonism, but rather with the desire to co-operate as fully as possible in the endeavour to secure needed reforms and such legislation as is necessary for the country as a whole, and, perhaps, for the West in particular, if we are to emerge from the morass in which we are struggling at the present time and to set our feet on dry ground again. I believe that the task will require the intelligent co-operation of every thinking man and woman in Canada, no matter in what part of the country they may live, and irrespective of racial extraction, occupation, or any other consideration. I believe that the task before us will demand their intelligent co-operation if Canada is to be the country we all think it should be. That is the spirit in which we have come here.
I have read with a good deal of interest the Speech from the Throne, and have heard with equal interest the debate which has been held upon it and which has to some extent explained and amplified it; and I find myself very much in accord with the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. McMurray), because, in spite of the somewhat gloomy pessimism of the right hon. gentleman who leads the official Opposition (Mr. Meighen), I, like my hon. friend frorp North Winnipeg, intend to retain my optimism until the Government itself, by any future action, shall destroy it. We come into Parliament believing that the Government intend to carry out legislation along the lines of their old platform and their pre-election promises. We are taking that for granted until the Government itself shall do something to deprive our minds of that confidence in them. We intend to do the Government justice to that extent, and to afford all the assistance possible in the carrying out of their programme.
In looking over the Speech from the Throne I was particularly pleased with one paragraph, referred to by every hon. member who has spoken, and that, the reference to agriculture. There is one respect, in this connection, in which I must congratulate the Government. For a good many years we farmers have suffered from a superfluity of advice from bankers,
lawyers, manufacturers, politicians, and a good many other people, as to what we should do and what we should best produce, what class . of farming we should follow, whether we should grow wheat or go in for mixed farming, or raise cattle, and so forth. We have had an abundance of that sort of advice, and while we recognize that these things may be important, I am very glad indeed to see that the Government, in the Speech from the Throne, has realized that the foundation of agricultural prosperity lies not so much in them, but in proper marketing and transportation, and in lower production costs. It seems to me that this, to a large extent, covers all the ground; it covers the tariff, the railway situation and marketing; and if these three things are settled, and settled so that farmers may work under them to advantage, I do not think we have any great kick coming; we have, I think, very little left to ask for. I am not going to speak at any length on the question of marketing. That has been dealt with before, and no doubt it will be spoken of by others. I will only mention that we have come to this conclusion, after a great deal of thought and experience-that if we are to succeed in business we must have some method of controlling the marketing of products. By that I mean some method by which the producer controls the marketing and flow of his own products until they arrive at their ultimate destination. We are not particularly desirous of controlling the price. We recognize that it is impossible for the farmers of one nation to control prices, but we believe that by controlling the flow, so that the products arrive at the markets of the world, throughout the year, as those markets can absorb them, we can stabilize the prices and receive the highest average world price throughout the year. As to the form that this control should take, I am not prepared to say; that will have to be settled later on. I believe that the ultimate solution will be some form of cooperative organization by the farmers themselves; but I also believe that, for the present, some form of Government board will have to be adopted. That, however, I will leave to the future; it will be discussed in Committee, and I shall not go further in detail in that respect just now. There is also the other point, of lower costs of production, which links itself most intimately with the tariff, because the one thing that causes our costs of production to be higher than it should be is the increased

The Address

price of farm machinery and farm equipment due to the protective tariff. I am not going to say much about the protective tariff. Protection has been a political football for so many years that 1 cannot say anything new on the subject. That is a remarkable thing, too. Election after election, and session after session, this football has been kicked about from one party to another, and yet it remains about the same size, and is about the same colour and texture as it was a good many years ago. I think it is a remarkable instance of endurance. I do want to point out one thing, and that is our attitude on the subject of protection at large; -I am not referring to tariff for revenue; that should properly come under the taxation and not under protection, I am referring to the principle of protection. That principle we believe to be morally wrong and economically unsound. We believe it is morally wrong, because anything is wrong morally which gives to one class of individuals in a community the power to exploit .other classes to their own personal advantage. And I am including farmers in that; I do not believe that farmers or any other class should have any form of special privilege which will enable them to exploit other classes. We believe protection is unsound economically because it delays and hampers the development of our natural resources of all kinds-farming, mining, timber and other resources-by increasing the cost of the machinery used in that development. We believe that in the development of the natural resources which God has placed within our country in such plenitude lies the future of this Dominion. There is another point in this connection: adopted as a principle protection becomes futile as a form of taxation, because the more perfect it becomes for the purposes of protection, the more adequate protection is, the smaller your revenue becomes; protection carried to the extreme degree would completely shut out all imports, and then, of course, no revenue could be produced. We say, therefore, that the protective tariff is an illogical form of revenue. We believe, furthermore, that taxation of this kind proceeds altogether in the wrong direction because it is a consumption tax, and in principle the consumption tax is less desirable than any form of direct taxation because it bears most heavily upon those who are least able to bear it. You can easily see that the poorer a man is the larger the proportion of his income that 
goes for the necessities of life, and if he is taxed on the necessities of life, the larger the proportion of taxation he has to pay. But, leaving that out of the question, we believe that it is an illogical form of taxation in the present condition of the country. Most people in this country- and strange as it may seem, this question becomes linked up with that of immigration as well-most people, no matter what their party affiliation may be, regard the great need of this country as population; they believe we should encourage an increase of population by any means in our power. Logically speaking, a bachelor tax might be all right for the purpose of encouraging population,-and mind you, I am not attempting to embarrass the Government by advocating a tax on bachelors. I simply wish to point out that taxation through protection is a baby tax, and a baby tax, where population is our greatest necessity and where native-born population is the best population, is, I contend, Mr. Speaker, not a logical tax. And what else can you call it? You who have children know that for every additional child in your family you must buy additional shoes and garments of various kinds; and many other things, and you are taxed on every one of those things you buy. It simply means that under a protective tariff, for every child you have in your family, you are subjected to additional taxation; and if that is not a baby tax, what is it?
Now, I am going to leave that subject for better men than I am to tackle later on. But I want to say a word, just in passing, on the subject of immigration as connected with conditions pertaining to agriculture. We wish to bring in a great number of immigrants who. shall go on the farms; as I understand it, that is the object of any immigration policy we may adopt- to bring in men and women more or less experienced in farming, who will go upon the land, open up undeveloped areas, particularly in the West and through parts of Ontario, and thus increase production. Mr. Speaker, the foundation of any form of immigration which can possibly be successful in attaining that object must be the prosperity of those already on the land. That, I believe, is the only policy of immigration which is worth the paper it is written on. When you have made the condition of the farmers already here prosperous, tolerable and decent as far as possible, others will come in to share their prosperity. But until you have done that, what is the use of trying to induce others

The Address
to come here only to share our poverty and distress. Now, that sounds like strong language; yet is it too strong? I say poverty and distress. After I came to Ottawa I was speaking to a gentleman who was fairly well acquainted, with city conditions and he remarked that we were very fortunate in Western Canada in that whatever our conditions were, however hard the times might be, no man, woman or child in that part of the country was suffering for want of food; all were farmers and all would have plenty of food in their cupboards. I told that gentleman, as I can tell the House now and as some hon. members must know, that even among farmers whose occupation is the production of food there are hundreds-I believe I am within the mark in saying thousands-who are dependent upon the municipalities and upon the Government for their daily bread at the present time. This statement is not exaggerated; the conditions are such as I have described. While it is true that these conditions are confined to a few areas the fact remains that in. a great portion of Western Canada at least-I cannot speak for the farmers of the East-the farmers are simply living on their reserves; they are farming at a loss, holding on, hoping for a better day to come when prices for what they have to sell, prices for what they have to buy, and transportation rates, will come to such a point as will make a living possible. We have been told-and there is a great deal of logic in it-that a decrease of freight rates can only follow an increase in population. I can see the force of that argument, but at the same time I believe that increase of population must be preceded by a decrease in the freight rates; otherwise the population will simply not come in.
There is just one other point to which I wish to refer briefly. It is a point without political significance and with respect to Which all members of the House will, I believe, be in accord. It is in connection with the re-establishment of the former members of the Canadian expeditionary forces. I would like to call the attention of this House to the condition that at present prevails among the greater number, I believe, in the West at least, of the returned men who have been placed upon the land through the work of the Soldier Settlement Board. I believe that board has done its duty faithfully and carried out its work sympathetically, so far as I have seen, and I have no desire to criticise it. But it is time, in my opinion, that the policy of that
6J
board should be amplified-indeed, that a different policy should be pursued. Most of these men went on the land in good faith, When the price of everything was at its peak. They went there at a time when prices were abnormal, when prices had reached a stage which they may not reach again for many years. The cost of machinery was at the peak; prices of stock and everything else that was needed for their farming activities were at the peak, and they bought at those prices. They bought land when land was selling on the basis of two-dollar wheat and cattle were bringing profitable prices. They bought machinery at the highest prices which have been known. They bought cattle when milch cows were bringing from $100 to $140. And now where are they? They went into debt for these things-for that land and that stock and' the equipment purchased at these high prices, and at present their indebtedness to the Government on that stock and equipment exceeds the total value of the property which they possess. This, Mr. Speaker, is a serious condition and one which this House will have to take into account. These men went overseas; they fought and suffered both physically and financially in order that this country and the world might be free. They were put upon the land, in good faith, as a kind of mark of appreciation-as a method of assisting them to regain their places in civil life. The idea was right, and I believe the expectations were well founded. But what has happened? All these men, or a very large proportion of them, at all events, were called upon to pay about ten per cent of the value of the land when they got it. If they leave their farms now they lose not only the government land, not only all the work they have put in upon it, but every cent they possessed before they went on the land as well. Is that fair, is it just? It is absolutely impossible-and I speak from experience because, though inexperienced in this House, I am experienced in farming-conditions in that part of the country- for any one of these men to make good under that burden of debt. Even old experienced farmers with their holdings free from debt cannot possibly make interest on their holdings under present conditions. How then can we expect these newcomers to make principal and interest on an overcapitalized farm? It is absolutely impossible. To a large extent they are foredoomed to failure under present conditions, and will leave the land. That sounds like
The Address

a very gloomy prospect. What suggestions have we to make? My suggestion is simply this, and it is one which has been endorsed pretty generally by the farmers who would have to help to pay the bill, that the land, the stock, and the machinery, bought in that way should be re-valued and brought down to a value comparable to the values prevailing at the present time, and that the difference between the debt which these men assumed and the present value be taken over by the country, as an addition to our public debt. I know that sounds unpopular, but that loss is more apparent than real, because every time one of these men goes under, and they are doing it every day, a salvage sale is necessary and the stuff is sold at present prices, or at less than present prices at a forced sale, and the country has to take the loss. Sooner or later,-and I make a very'conservative estimate because, although I am Progressive in my principles, I am very conservative in my statements in most ways-I believe at least seventy per cent of these men are doomed to failure and to leave the land, and when they leave the land the country will have to stand the loss of the difference between the value of their stock when they leave the land and the value of their stock when they bought it. But the country will lose far more than that. While these men are on the land they are producing citizens, self-respecting men supporting themselves; they are an asset to their country, because production is necessary; they are working. But if they are forced to leave the land, what happens? They become a liability. Under present conditions they will simply have to join the ranks of the unemployed and in one way or another they and their families will have to be kept by this country. I do not say that every one who leaves his farm will have to join the unemployed, but with tens of thousands of unemployed in this country to-day, every one of these men who has to leave the land will either remain unemployed himself or force someone else into the ranks of the unemployed; the ranks of the unemployed will be swelled in either event, and these men will no longer be an asset but a liability to their country. More than that, in their own character, in their own purposefulness, in their own power to make good citizens, they will have been lost. They will have lost heart, they will have lost courage, they will have lost belief in the righteousness, the fairness and justness of their fellow-men, in the country they live in.

While I am not attempting to embarrass the Government in any way at the present time, I hope that this matter will receive the most serious consideration of the department concerned and of the Government as a whole. I can assure the Government that any action along the line I have suggested will receive the hearty co-operation and support of my friends here.
There is another question, and though it is a small one, it is still most important. For the next year or two it will be practically impossible for any one of these men to make payments on his land, and I think it would be good policy-I simply throw that out as a suggestion-to extend the time of payment; for two years. Give them two years free of principal and free of interest during which they might be able to get on their feet financially, and in that way help them to make good.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken long enough for the first time, but before taking my seat I want to make just one brief statement. Being, as I am, quite inexperienced in this House, it will probably take me some time to thoroughly imbibe its atmosphere. We were all treated to a very fine exhibition of oratory yesterday and part of the time to-day, and if that is a sample of the eloquence of the statesmen in Parliament, if the courtesy and the absence of all personalities displayed was a fair sample of what commonly goes on in Parliament, I am afraid it will be a very long time before I and some of my associates can hope to climb to such heights.
In conclusion, I would simply repeat what I have said before and what others have said before me, that we are here to work, not for the good of any one part of Canada, but we are here as Canadians to do all in our power to assist others to work for the common good of our country.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, our Labour group in this House is small and inexperienced, but we feel that we represent a section of the community that is of no small importance, and that in connection with this debate we should try as best we may to represent the thought of that section of the community on the various public questions which have come before this House.
In an early section of the Speech from the Throne reference is made to the worldwide economic disturbance, but passage is quickly made to an easy optimism which foretells a substantial revival in trade. It sounds very much as if prosperity is just

The Address
around the corner. I think, however, we must concede that we are beginning to understand more clearly than ever that prosperity cannot be had just for whistling, that prosperity may come only as we are in accord with great economic laws, and i that at this particular time we cannot hope for prosperity for Canada short of prosperity for all the nations of the world. If there is one thing that this war has taught the world, it is that no nation lives to itself, as no individual lives to himself, and Canada to-day can hardly hope for permanent prosperity short of the stability and prosperity of the whole of Europe.
I take it that our economic future in this country is inextricably bound up with that of the United States. We may maintain our own political identity, but economically we are bound to have the very closest relations with the great country to the south of us. It is many years since Goldwin Smith pointed out that the natural lines on this continent run north and south. Artificial lines have been run east and west, and along these artificial political lines we have built up our trade boundaries. That makes it very difficult to pass freely across those boundaries. We must recognize that although we differ in a very important sense economically from the United States-in that we are a debtor nation while they are a creditor nation-at the same time the ties between us are so intimate that we cannot hope to prosper unless they also prosper. The situation, it seems to me, with regard to the United States and ours was quite clearly put in an article which appeared two weeks ago in the "New Republic." May I be permitted to read an excerpt therefrom:
A large part of our agricultural products must still be sold upon an international market, and rnust come into competition with the output of the European farmer. If the inter-dependence of agricultutral crop values and manufacturing output is valid, it must hold for Europe as well as for America. Unless something is done soon about German reparations, German industry will certainly pass through a period of paralysis early next year. Everywhere the political situation is such that business enterprise will be at a low ebb.
The present economic order is essentially a co-operative one. Its co-operation is effected through exchange, and between all the exchanging groups, there is an intimate degree of interdependence. The American manufac-[DOT] turer and the American farmer must depend upon each other. But the American farmer' is tied to the European price level by the fact that he produces for export. The European farmer is in turn dependent upon Europe's manufacturing communities. So we can do little for the American farmer unless we help the
European manufacturer and his laborers. Whether we like it or not, the organization of industrial society has made us our brother's keeper.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that in this way we must recognize that the great demand is for markets. But we must also recognize that all other countries are also seeking for markets at this time; not only Great Britain but the various countries in Europe. The United States is also calling for markets; even the Orient is calling for markets. We in Canada cannot very well hope to compete successfully at this time with other countries along the lines of manufacture. Our whole industry in the past has been connected with the Atlantic ocean. Possibly there is a trade that might be opened up across the Pacific, but that would involve a complete diversion of the trade which has been going on for a great many years, and probably we could not look to that in the immediate future as bringing about the required solution.
But, Sir, I believe there is a market closer at hand than Europe or the Orient and that is the home market, the most neglected of all our markets to-day. I think it is admitted by the Minister of Labour that we have something like 200,000 people unemployed in Canada to-day-probably those figures are very conservative. This would likely mean that there are a million people in Canada that are to-day affected by unemployment-that are either directly unemployed or under-employed. Now I imagine that if these million people could buy shoes and clothes, and groceries, and furniture, and other things which are necessary for living, we would have, right at home, a large market which to-day is being neglected. Under our present economic system we cannot start the wheels of production moving unless there is some buyer who stands ready with money or with credit; and to-day we have so managed our affairs that there are hundreds of thousands of people 'in this country who are not buying simply because they have not the money or the credit with which to buy. I speak particularly of the large numbers on farms in the West and also in our cities and industrial sections from coast to coast.
I sometimes wonder whether we who sit in these comfortable halls quite recognize the actual conditions that prevail in many sections of this Canada of ours. A few years ago I belonged to a labour organization on the Coast that had rather a curious regulation which prohibited any
The Address

paid official of the union from holding office for more than six months at a time. It was felt that after six months the official tended to acquire the official mind, and ought to go back again to the ranks to find what the real conditions were. Ferhaps if that rule were applied in this House, and in some of our Government departments, we might get a little bit nearer to the actual conditions of the people across this country. I am sure that some of my friends from some of the farms, who till our fields, as well as some of the artisans in the cities who build houses and carry forward a good deal of the work of this country will understand what I mean when I say there are a large number of people across this country to-day who, if not actually unemployed and in dire necessity, are passing through a period of very great anxiety. And this, by the way, is not confined merely to those who are commonly called workers but to a large number of our business men who also do not see their way clearly at this time.
I should like to take up the time of the House for a few minutes in reviewing a little of the unemployment situation across the country. A few weeks ago I had the opportunity of visiting the relief camp for single men maintained by the city of Vancouver. Nearly eight hundred men, almost half of them returned soldiers, were gathered together in a large camp at the exhibition grounds at Hastings park-the returned men termed it "the internment' camp." One building had be^n transformed into an immense bunk house; and near by, in what had been the automobile section, there was what the men called "the filling station"-the dining room. Here these men were given three meals a day and a bed at night. All that the community received in return was the few hours work which was frankly a work test. These men-many of whom, most of whom in fact, had been declared by medical health officers to be fit-had skilled trades, a great many of them had served, as I have said, overseas. And yet this is all.that we had to offer them at the present time in a country and in a province that had on every side crying needs for development work of almost every kind. The prairit farmers are needing lumber and hundreds of these men were skilled loggers, but we could not get them to work and we could not get the lumber out to the farmers. Coming east I stayed off for a day or two at Drumheller where there are immense coal deposits, as we all know. Many of

the miners there had been employed only part of the time for thirteen and a half months One man told me that he had had only sixty-two days work in the year 1921. Drumheller is on a government railway, quite capable of bringing that coal which we so much need on the prairie, but the freight rates were said to be prohibitive. Coming on down to my own city of Winnipeg, there are and have been approximately 5,000 men unemployed there during the past months. According to a memorandum furnished the provincial government a few weeks ago, the cost was averaging about $265,000 per month, part of this on relief work, and pai't of it on special work, most of it granted to meet the unemployment situation, but for a very considerable part of which, the community received a very small return indeed. In Toronto I was told there were some 16,000 or 18,000 registered unemployed, but those nearest the situation declare that there are 25,000 unemployed. The House of Industry alone assisted this winter some 6,482 families, 1,761 of these families being families of returned men. This is saying nothing of the large number of single men who are being provided for more or less by other agencies. The expense for the month of February alone was between $80,000 and $100,000. I wish we could visualize what this unemployment really means. I wonder if I might be permitted to read a paragraph from a report of the city of Vancouver by a visitor accompanying one of the Victorian Order of Nurses. The paragraph reads:
I visited a score of homes of the poor and sick and saw privation and dire want with my own eyes. It was pathetic. I had known poverty before when every member of the family had to work incessantly to make both ends meet, but for the adults in these homes there was no work to be had anywhere and the people are almost starving. The men are willing to do anything. They seek steady employment and are eager to do ther best. Their wives would take any work that they could get, but there is none. There is a dreadful calm and weariness about the children of these people, and an unnatural quietness in their childishness due to malnutrition. They have been hungry for so long that they do not realize that they are hungry.. Many of them go to school, but it does them no more good than if they stayed at home. "You cannot fill a child's head'when his stomach is empty, and what we need along with compusory education is compulsory feeding" was the way one keen observer put it.
And then there follows case upon case of the actual conditions which prevail even in that young city. Then I will read one

The Address
paragraph from the December Health Bulletin of the city of Toronto:
In discussing the minimum income the medical health officer said: "In determining this, we must do so, not only in the interest of the family, hut also of the state, inasmuch as the essentials for proper nutrition and proper methods of living mean the difference ofttimes between a physical asset and a physical liability to the nation. The minimum standard of living must be such as to make it possible for every child to be well born and have an adequate opportunity for normal development, and the maintaining of physical fitness for every adult. A fitness that will enable men to give 100 per cent efficiency to their employers and the mothers to give 100 per cent efficiency in their homes. A standard should be fixed below which no family can safely come."
While these are only a few investigations that have been made in connection with children, and only a limited number of the figures and facts available, yet they seem to prove beyond doubt that not only is poverty largely responsible for malnutrition, but they are ofttimes in direct ratio.
In an investigation made by the Bureau of Child Hygiene and Child Welfare at Washington, they found that the mortality among the lowest-paid ranged from 2 to 3 times greater than among those with the largest incomes.
Now, in the face of such a situation as that, in face of the po'verty that prevails in so many of our cities, I can hardly understand the callousness of some of our financiers as they look over the situation that prevails. For instance, in the annual statement of the Bank of Montreal-and I believe there are directors of that institution members of this House-the general manager states that unemployment is a natural corrective. As I think of these cases brought to our notice by the Victorian Order of Nurses and by social workers in all our cities from coast to coast, I can hardly conceive of any man or any group of men really understanding the situation and declaring that unemployment is a natural corrective. I claim that we have come to a period in the history of our country when we must decide once and for all which shall prevail, profits or human welfare. I feel confident that there is a group of men here, new members of the House if you will, who have clearly made up their minds that, in so far as they can decide it, human welfare is to be given the precedence.	.
I should like to suggest certain points which gradually emerge as the unemployed themselves have discussed this great problem of theirs. First of all, it seems to me that it should be recognized that, under the present system of large-scale industry, unemployment is involuntary. I am quite free to admit that there are among the
unemployed a certain percentage who are lazy, drunken and inefficient-and any one who has studied the subject knows that, to a very large extent, their laziness, drunkenness and inefficiency are the result of our haphazard system-but at the same time we must further admit that that percentage is a very small one indeed. A few months ago most of these men who are now unemployed were at work, and if work offered they would be at work again. The difficulty with a good many of us in this country is that we have only recently passed through the pioneer development of our country. Some of us have grown up on the farm. Others of us who have not directly grown up on the farm still have more or less of the farm background and the farm traditions. We think back to the day when if a man could not find work and could not make a success it was his own fault. It was a time when almost every family was largely self-sufficient, and if a man was a hired man one year and did not like to continue the next, he could go to the back concessions, and make a home for himself. We are living still in thought in the time when in this country there were almost unlimited opportunities. But I submit that that time has passed away. The free accessible lands then in Canada have almost gone. If one would to-day have a freehold homestead he must pass almost beyond the reach of the railways. I say this, having full knowledge of the fact, that across our western country there are almost 30,000,000 acres of arable land held out of cultivation. But the free, accessible lands are almost a thing of the past. A hundred years ago settlement on this continent consisted of a few scattered communities along the Atlantic seaboard. It took practically a hundred years and three or four generations of the peoples, in their westward movement, to reach the Pacific. To-day the large part of our natural resources within easy reach have been exploited, and the opportunities, which were present in the early days in this western country of ours with its rapid developments, are not so numerous. We forget that we live in an age of collective production; that we live in an age of "large scale" industry; that we live in an age of more or less monopoly of the necessities of life.
For example, on a large railroad like the Canadian Pacific railway, so many thousand men may be laid off, as they were about Christmas time. Those men become
The Address

temporarily unemployed, and it is impossible to say that those men ought to find work. Where can they find work? We cannot build a Canadian Pacific railway in a year or in ten years, and is is impossible for those railway men to find work at their own trade. The same thing is very largely true of other fundamental industries. If for any reason logging operations at the Coast close, ten to twenty thousand men are thrown out of employment immediately. Where can they find work? They cannot go and cut trees as some of our forefathers did in the backwoods of Ontario. The timber limits are held to-day by great companies, many of them with headquarters in the United States. The same is true of mining; the same is becoming more and more true of fishing; and even in agriculture, it is becoming extremely difficult, under present circumstances, for a man to get a start. Although the farmer to-day is farming his own bit of land, so soon as he steps off his own quarter section, he comes into contact with, and more or less under the dominance of, the great, big world outside. He is dependent upon the outside for his machinery, for his transportation, for his markets. Therefore, it is not easy to-day for a man without capital to obtain a start. Under these circumstances, unemployment is involuntary, and we ought not to treat the unemployed man as if he were more or less of a criminal. Until we get that clearly into our minds, we are not going to be very much further on in getting this matter on to a firm basis.
Let me state another point and that is this, that under these conditions the state "is under obligation to provide work. I am not very much concerned personally, whether by the "state" we mean the municipality, or the province, or the Dominion. I would say, however, that whilst the Speech from the Throne would seek to evade, on the part of the Dominion, the responsibility of this problem of unemployment, in my judgment it is impossible to do so. The body that has to deal with great questions like immigration, the fiscal policy of this country, and our international relations, cannot say that it has no responsibility towards unemployment which is one of the consequences of, or intimately related to, our fiscal policy and our relations with other countries; and this House, before it rises, must deal with this question of unemployment. We should provide work. I am not thinking now merely of

the work test which is provided in connection with charitable institutions, I mean suitable work; I mean, further than that, work not done a'S mere charity and on rates lower than those paid to ordinary workers in the same kind of work, and I am not thinking of such work as has been undertaken very largely by our municipalities- work that is unproductive in character. Surely, in this country, with its small amount of development, there is work, productive in character, which can be undertaken by the state. As a taxpayer, I objected decidedly in my own little municipality to paying out taxes and receiving nothing whatever for those taxes; and, as more or less representing these unemployed workmen, I object to work being furnished as a sort of charity; that work degrades any man who undertakes it. We have in this country, surely, enough opportunities for work that any man who is willing ought to be given a chance.
I want to go to a third point, that until suitable work is provided there ought to be adequate maintenance. This is the very principle underlying all unemployment insurance schemes. We are behind many of the European countries in that we have not so far been able to make provision for unemployment insurance.
The principle of unemployment insurance is not a novel one.
10 p.m. We have it in our Workmen's Compensation Acts, where today we recognize that an industry ought to carry its own burdens, and that if a man is injured while pursuing his work, the industry itself ought to be charged with, at least, the financial part of his injury. The same thing is true with regard to seasonal unemployment. If it is necessary to have men in this country employed during rush seasons, we ought, at least, to see that they are kept over during the slack season. Hon. members who are he*re from the farming community will bear me out when I say that they winter over their horses in order that those horses shall be in fit condition to be used in the spring time. Should we treat with any less care or less wisdom the human machines that are necessary to carry on the industries of this country? Industry itself should carry the burden of unemployment.
One last principle which I should like to give in this connection is this. You may ask:	How shall unemployment
schemes be financed?-how shall we make provision for unemployment on a large

The Address
scale? I would say that the financing of any such scheme is a first charge on the natural resources and credit of the country. Surely there is no reason why we should insist that railway dividends should come up to a certain mark in order that railway investors should be able to go forward with their work, or why banks should be permitted to retain their interest and dividends, and yet that we should refuse to labour even the minimum, a decent living.
There are three factors, and three only, necessary to production; I think I am on safe ground when I make that statement. We need, first of all, natural resources; we need, in the second place, the equipment necessary to work those natural resources, and we need, in the third place, human labour. I use this term "labour" in no narrow sense, but rather in the broad sense of labour as they put it in the Old Land, labour of hand or of brain. The labouring man is the man who makes a real contribution to society. We need those three factors, and we have in Canada at the present time all those factors necessary to production.
I need not take up the time of the House in speaking about our natural resources. They are here in abundance. At every great public function, at almost every Canadian Club meeting, speakers grow eloquent over the wonderful natural resources of this country. They are here; we do not have to import them from Europe or from the United States. Further than that, we have also in this country the equipment with which to carry on the work of developing these resources. We have been told that we have six or eight thousand miles of railway more than we need. We have factories across the country from coast to coast that are closed down;	we have in the West
lumber mills that are closed down, We have mines closed down, and last year some of our canneries were not running to their full capacity. We undoubtedly have the facilities in this country for carrying on our industries. Some hon. members may remember that before the war-I am not sure whether it was in 1913 or 1914-Sir George Paish the editor of The Statist, told the people of Canada that they had already the equipment for carrying forward productive work of a volume two or three times greater than that which was at present being done, and at that time he advised the investors of Great Britain to put no more money into constructive enterprises but
rather to invest a little bit more in enterprises of a purely productive character. He warned them that, unless they did this, Canada would not be able even to pay interest charges on money already invested in this country. We already have all the equipment in the country. But what is the trouble? The trouble is essentially that we have allowed natural resources to be monopolized by private individuals or corporations, and have allowed the equipment to be handled very largely by these persons and corporations, who are looking to their own profits rather than to the welfare of the people. It is as though we had fenced off these natural resources and all this equipment and labour stood outside the fence unable to get at these things in order to carry forward the processes ' of production. At the gateway, is the privately-controlled credit system of our banks and financial institutions that determines on what terms we may go in or out; it determines on what conditions the business of the country shall be carried on. It seems to me that the great task of statesmanship in this country in the coming years will be to break down that fence and to bring together these great factors, labour, natural resources and the equipment which we already have in such abundance in Canada.
I should like to speak for a few minutes with regard to the reference which is made in the Speech to the transportation question, which is undoubtedly one of the great questions before the people of Canada to-day. I desire to congratulate the Government on the assertion of its determination to give Government ownership and operation of railways a fair trial. Some of us have learned this with considerable relief, for there had been an impression that public ownership might not be given a fair trial. We were glad to have the assurance of the Prime Minister in this respect, and I think perhaps we can trust the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) to see to it that the Board of Management which controls the Canadian National Railways shall be composed of men who are free from any suspicion whatever of having their own private interests to look after. Representing the Labour group, I should like to see the Government go even further than they have proposed to do in the way of bringing the various systems under control. Most of us have read with interest Lord Shaughnessy's plan for consolidation. I agree with the idea of having one great railway system in this

The Address
country, which, as Lord Shaughnessy says, is logical and economical; but I cannot agree with his suggestion that this be placed under the management of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I do not think that our Government owned railways will be ultimately successful until we have a unified system of all the railways in the Dominion.
The Speech foreshadows some changes in the customs tariff. We are not told just what those changes will be, but it is, to me at least, a keen disappointment that there is no indication that there are to fee any radical changes in the fiscal system as a whole. There is a great war debt which is an intolerable burden on the backs of the people of Canada, a mortgage on the efforts of future generations in this country. A very short time after the war was concluded, a rather interesting computation was made with regard to war debts. . A pamphlet, published by the Mechanics and Metals National Bank, estimated the war debts of Europe and the United States at something like $200,000,000.000. I quote:
The pamphlet is frank as to the meaning of this huge tax burden that the war has placed upon the people of Europe. It says: "Prance, if we make no allowance for indemnities to be received, apparently will require upwards of 40 per eent of her people's" peace time income, as that income was formerly figured, to meet the interest obligations and upkeep expenses of the nation in 1920. Great Britain will require 28 per cent. Russia, when its obligations ultimately are honoured, will apparently require more than 45 per cent of her people's income, as that income was figured prior to the war. Before meeting any indemnity obligations. Austria-Hungary will require 48 per cent and
Germany 31 per cent	 It means a
great deal to say that, following the conclusion of peace, from one-fourth to nearly one-half the income of the different peoples of Europe [DOT]will belong to the government. Yet that is plainly the indication."
It is a gruesome indication. It means that of his working year of 300 days the average European workingman will be expected to devote over 100 days to the service of the war debt. The pamphlet analyzes this in detail. The English workingman, according to the figures, will have to give the income of 84 days, the German workingman 90 days, the French workingman 120 days, the Russian workingman almost half his days, the Austrian more than half.
What about iCanada? Hon. members may remember that in the first budget after the war Sir Thomas White made a statement with regard to the heaviness of the burden which we had to carry. He said: I
I do not in the least desire to minimize the gravity of so great a debt as now confronts us 
on the threshold of the new year. It will constitute a burden upon the people of Canada for generations to come.
But Sir Thomas White found a great deal of consolation in the fact, that from a national standpoint, the 'public debt when owed to the nation itself is not nearly so serious an obligation as when owed abroad. The interest paid upon the debt is disbursed at home and remains part of the national resources. Now, it may be a considerable consolation to members who hold large blocks of Government bonds to find that a great part of the war debt of Canada is owed to people in Canada, but I submit that it is an altogether different matter when we consider that the rank and file of the people have to bear these interest charges. It means that we and our children after us, if this thing continues, shall be simply hewers of wood and drawers of water for a few privileged individuals who made profits during the war and managed to put them by safely. There is something here that will have to be settled sooner or later by the people of the country. I think of the way in which a great many fortunes were made during the war. I hold in my hand a pamphlet issued by the Central Information Office of the Canadian Liberal Party in 1918. We read in this pamphlet a good deal about war contract scandals, in regard to horses boots, trucks, binoculars, etc. You heard of that from almost every platform in the country. Hon. gentlemen across the way were very keen on pointing out the horrible extravagances of the government during war times; let me suggest that they now have an opportunity of having some voice with regard to the war fortunes that were made in this way. It is no less than a disgrace that while"Some men were asked to give their all in the time of war, and while many did give their all, as they thought, in the service of their country; while men and women all over the land worked and saved and toiled during those long years, others did not hesitate to coin money. I say it is a disgrace that they have been allowed to retain so long their ill gotten gains. Is-there to be no equality of sacrifice? Mr. Speaker, we heard a g'ood deal about conscription during the war. Men were asked to go to the front; lives were taken to be given to the service of the state. I would like to repeat here the stand that some of us took during the war: that if it is right to conscript men it is right to conscript wealth. "Surely we have come to the time in our country when there

The Address
should 'be a levy on wealth. In the Old Country they are talking about a capital levy for the reduction or abolition of the war debt; I should like to advocate a capital levy in this country for the abolition of the war debt. That would mean at least something like equality of sacrifice.
One more point ought to be brought to the attention of the House from the labour standpoint. The Government proposes to institute a Department of Defence. I have no doubt that from the standpoint of military efficiency that is a move in the rig'ht direction, but there are other considerations than those of military efficiency. A study of the 'budget for the past year reveals the fact that we are paying something like $25 per head in Canada for wars past and for prospective wars. That is, according to our estimate of a family of five, $125 per family for the burden entailed by the wars of the past and1 the burden of preparation for wars to come. The people of this country were asked to go into this past war on the promise that it would toe a war to end war. Is war ended, when now we are proposing to create a Defence Department? I think the time has come to get away from all the high-sounding phrases that we had during the war. Let us get down to business. Let us ask ourselves against whom we propose to defend ourselves. We have a large country toward the south of us- friendly neighbors; we have boasted that along that extensive front we have not had a single fort and that on those Great Lakes we have not had a single battleship. Do we propose to defend ourselves against our American cousins? If this country ever becomes a part of the United States it will not be in my judgment because the United States invades us with a military force. The Americans are buying up the country, and possibly it may come in that way. But I do not think we can say seriously that it is a practical thing for us to propose to defend ourselves against an incursion from the United States. Do we propose to defend ourselves against possible attack from Europe? To-day the enemies of Great Britain lie prostrate. I tell you there is a very real danger that having conquered militarism among certain of the peoples of Europe we should at this.time be militarized. Speaking as a Canadian of some three or four generations, I say that my forefathers did not come across to this country in order that we should set up here a new feudalism or a new militarism. Are we proposing to defend ourselves against the
peoples of the Orient? I had hoped that Pacific questions had been at least temporarily settled at the time of the Washington Conference. Surely we cannot in cold blood, now that the fever of war has died down, contemplate with equanimity the preparation for another war. I want to read a paragraph from an issue of the Manitoba Free Press published in my own city of Winnipeg on the loth of October, 1921. It is not very often that the Free Press quotes me; I shall do it the honour of quoting it:
AH the information in those vast collections of war books is of the same character. It tells of loss of life, loss of health, lost of property ; of unbridled' violence, of premeditated and deliberate destruction of wealth. Go into any public library ; go to the "war-section," and the books you pull out will tell you about "crashing shells", about "gross mutilations", about regiments being "annihilated", about cities destroyed by artillery fire, about refugee women, about homeless and starving old people and children, about forced military service, about "industrial dislocation", about financial disturbance, about war taxation, about unemployment, hunger and national destitution. As a comprehensive narration of ruin, misery and disaster, the contents of the war departments of the world's libraries are easily the greatest within human knowledge.
To talk about the war being a forgotten thing, of the past is to talk foolishly. The millions of unemployed. on both sides of the Atlantic are one powerful reminder of the war; there are very few people who are not injured somewhere or other in their lives, and the injury comes from the war-either very obviously, as in the loss of relations, or of health, or less obviously in the increased price of commodities, or in lack of employment. Looking at it dispassionately-
And I 'hope that we are now able to do
so.
Looking at it dispassionately, at the miserable legacies of the war everywhere around us, at the records of the four years of battle preserved in the literature of the war, war on the very face of it is so calamitous, ruinous, and cruel, that it becomes difficult to understand how anyone would be in favour of it, it seems difficult to imagine anyone wanting to have another great war.
There is no profit in war; the loser loses, the victor loses, the neutral loses, everybody loses. The last war exposed and exploded all the arguments urged on behalf of war-they were all seen to be false. Nobody gained, everybody suffered, vast numbers are suffering still; war was a failure, total and ghastly; it was left without argument or apology, something which is demonstrably a total loss to the human species.
Mi\ Speaker, I submit that after the experience of those dread years of war, we should surely be looking forward to some other method of settling our international disputes than by the resort to physical
The Address

force. Two or three years ago, just after the war was over, we were all buoyed up as it were with the great hope of a new social order that was to dawn in the world. There was much talk of reconstruction, but the years have gone by and there has been a great disillusionment in the minds of many, and the reconstruction has somehow or other settled down to be more or less a reconstruction along the old lines. Yet there are many men, and I think among the younger men in Canada, who are still looking forward to a new type of life here on this North American continent and in the world as a whole. I hope that idealism has not quite gone from our midst, but as we look forward to this new world we see that there are going to be radical changes in our social system. I have sometimes said as I looked at the unemployment and the desperate straits to which thousands of my fellow-citizens were driven, that if this kind of thing went on very much longer there would undoubtedly be an outbreak of bloodshed of some kind. I am making no threat, but the whole of the warnings of history point to the fact that unless men and women and children are cared for, the whole nation inevitably suffers as the result, and my thought at this time, as we enter upon the sessions of a new Parliament is this: that as the war and the policies of the war have been swept aside, we have in this Canada of ours a wonderful chance for the working out of a great new policy. I like the spirit of some of my friends here, the Progressive members, who are determined not to play parish politics and not to play party politics any more, but who are here rather with the idea of the welfare of the country as the dominating motive in their public lives.
Mr. Speaker, we are too small a group to have very much effect in this House, I fear, but I would like to tell you that behind the divisions and, often, the crudities, of the Labour people, who are at the very foundation of the great industries of this country, there is an intense idealism, a looking forward to the period of world brotherhood, and I would not be true to that group did I not stand here at the very beginning of our parliamentary sessions and express the hope that as we work out these detailed policies for our own country, we will not lose sight of that larger hope which is inspiring at least very large numbers of the workers the world over.


Mr. R. J. WOODS (Dufferin):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address the House for

the first time, I wish as a member from the back concessions of rural Ontario to make clear the attitude and conditions of the farmers in this province. I shall not detain the House at any great length. It is not my intention to discuss any question pertaining to the provincial government of Ontario, I shall not enter upon a discussion of the Hydro policy of Sir Adam Beck. But for a brief space of time I wish to deal with a few matters that have come under my observation which are of interest to the farmers of this province.
I have listened with delight, as a newcomer to this House, to the debate as it has progressed so far. With some of the questions that have been brought forward I am heartily in sympathy; there are others, however, that do not meet with my approval, but I shall not take up the time of the House to discuss any minor questions that have been brought forward during this debate.
It is gratifying to me, and I believe to a great many people in this Dominion, to know that in the election campaign which terminated on the sixth day of December last the women of this country had an opportunity to cast their ballot. I think we in this country were long in coming to the point where we recognized the worth of the women of our land. I think we were very slow in granting them the franchise and according them their proper place as citizens of this great Dominion. They contributed no less a part than the men in the construction and pioneer life of this country. Many of them came to Canada from the Old Land when this country was a wilderness, and they helped their husbands hew out a home, and raised families which were a credit to this Dominion. They contributed their part in the home life, and also in the social and religious activities of the community. And yet for years and years they were deprived of the franchise. But at last the women have been accorded their proper place as citizens of this country, and I join with previous speakers in expressing gratification that this House is to-day honoured with the presence of a lady member, the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail). Personally I feel somewhat honoured by having the privilege of occupying the same desk as our hon. lady member. I do not know whether that honour has been conferred upon me because of my good looks, or whether it is because I am a close neighbour of the hon. member for Southeast Grey. What-

The Address
ever the reason may be I certainly deem it an honour to be permitted to sit in the front row in this Chamber and at the same desk as my fair colleague.
The recent Great War has brought about changes in the political attitude of many of the citizens of Canada, and I think it is because of that fact that so many farmer members occupy seats in the present Parliament. I well remember, and it will be in the recollection of many members of the House, that but a few short years ago on our side roads and back concession lines political contests were fought out largely on the lines of party politics. At that time both Liberals and Conservatives would raise the cry " Stay with your party," and on many occasions neighbours, even though their interests were identical, would often be divided by party issues almost to the breaking point. I certainly think that the Great War through which we have passed is partly responsible for the change in that respect in the rural sections of our country.
The farmers have now become organized and I do not think any one will complain because of their doing so. They have long been organized, and have long co-operated in the carrying on of commercial enterprises, and therefore it is only logical for them to advance a further step and to organize on political lines. Owing to that organization the farmers of this country have now a representation in Parliament such as they never had in the past. They have not embarked upon this political movement for the purposes of securing class legislation, although during the recent political campaign it was advanced that they had become associated for selfish purposes and to bring about laws favourable to their class. We are willing to admit that possibly there is just as much selfishness among the farmers as among any other class, but we are not willing to agree that they are more largely influenced by selfishness than any other portion of the community. We have entered into this movement in order to lay our views before the country and assist in the legislation of the Dominion. Surely it will be admitted that no persons are better able to understand the conditions of the farming industry than those who themselves are engaged in agriculture. The merchants of the country have a grasp of mercantile conditions, the manufacturers have an intimate knowledge of industrial necessities, and farmers are best fitted to understand and give expression to the conditions of farm life. We
have therefore come here to help in legislating on broad and comprehensive lines and to explain as best we can the requirements of the farming community of Canada.
One thing we certainly require, and it is a necessity to which frequent allusion has been made-greater markets for our farm products. We heard a great deal of the depopulation of the rural sections of Canada, and especially of the rural sections of the province of Ontario. Certainly the latter statement is true; the rural sections of Ontario are not nearly as well populated as they formerly were. If this be the case what is the reason for it? There must be some explanation when farmers leave the farm, when farmers' sons will not remain at home but make their way to the great urban centres of the country. To my mind one great cause of that movement is the lack of adequate remuneration received by the farmers for their labour. The farmer's son is not going to remain on the farm when his city cousin receives a great deal more for his labours than he himself does. Therefore, in order to increase our farm population and augment the production on the farms, markets must be provided for our farm products. We are living in a comparatively new country, possessing immense agricultural resources as yet undeveloped. On the great prairies of the West there are thousands of acres still uncultivated which could be made to produce in abundance; and even in rural Ontario-I mean, what is known as Old Ontario- the production could be greatly enhanced. But, as I said a moment ago, men leave the farms. They do not leave the farms because those farms are a gold mine; men will not run away from a gold mine. One thing that we need is larger markets, more extensive markets for the products of our farm. How are we going to get them? We are hedged in to some extent because we have to face the Fordney Bill passed by the great nation to the south of us. Then the embargo on our cattle in the Old Country has not yet been removed. We are hopeful that by and by it will be removed; but it is still a settled fact that that embargo remains against our cattle entering the Old Country, at least they have to be slaughtered at the point of entry, and it is a handicap to the farmers in marketing the cattle because it reduces their value. Then, as far as the United States' market, which is our most natural market, is concerned, we are hedged in by the Fordney

The Address
Bill. We are looking to the present Government and hoping that they will be. able to negotiate some agreement whereby we will have greater access to the market of the great nation to the south of us. True it is that we had the reciprocity agreement brought before us in 1911. True it is that it was voted down by the people of the Dominion of Canada. True it is that many of us farmers are guilty in that we did not support that reciprocity agreement. But why was it not supported, or why was it turned down? To some degree the great issue was camouflaged, and other matters were brought into that campaign of 1911 to divert the minds of the farmers from the great issue at stake, and to side-track them in some way so that they would not support the reciprocity agreement. There was a cry of "No truck nor trade with the Yankees." There was the cry that if that agreement was brought about it would be a step in the direction of annexation, and matters were introduced into that campaign that should not have been introduced, and the things had a wonderful effect in connection with the vote of many farmers in this country. But we have a different viewpoint in regard to that matter to-day. You know that after the campaign of 1911, the United States Government saw fit to remove the duty on our live stock, and our live stock went to the United States' market free. Every farmer that raised stock and every farmer that was engaged in mixed farming is well aware of the result, which was that we got an increased price for our cattle and greater advantages in marketing our stock. But when the Fordney Bill was passed we were again hedged in, and, as no doubt many honourable members of this House are quite aware, the great Union Stock Yards in the city of Toronto at times were almost overstocked with cattle, and the market price of the cattle was low. Now we are looking to the Government and hoping that they will again undertake this task, as we believe they are contemplating, in order to bring about for the farmers of this country greater advantages and an open market in the country to the south of us.
The farmers have to abide by the law of supply and demand. The greater the production the greater the supply and the lower the price. So that with our surplus products we have to compete with the open markets of the world. Just by way of illustration: About two years ago

tanners in our immediate vicinity, and I think generally in the province of Ontario, received very high prices for their potatoes in the spring of the year; some of them obtained $4 and even $5 a bag for them. We often heard people making the remark that the farmers were getting wealthy. What are the facts of the case? The facts are that they did not have the supply, and many of the farmers, even with the high price of potatoes, had to buy their seed to plant that year, and had to pay the high price of $4 or $5 a bag for their seed. What was the result the year following? The year following there was an abundant supply, and the price went away down, so that they were sold at from 15 to 25 cents per bag on the open market. I personally knew farmers who drew their potatoes out and dumped them in the field, because they could not sell them at all. We are face to face with competition, the law of supply and demand, and have to accept what our products will bring on the open market-.
The farmers of this country are looking for a relief in taxation. That has been referred to on more than one occasion by hon. members of this House. I refer to indirect taxation through the protective tariff that is in operation in this country. We are not looking for any favours, but we are looking for a policy that will make it easier for the poor man to live, a fiscal policy for this country that will not make the rich man richer and the poor man poorer. We are looking for relief along that line, and as the hon. leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Crerar) stated, we are looking for a revision of the tariff and we are looking for that revision to be downward.
In conclusion, I say that we, as farmers, are not concerned about politics. We are not here to build up any political party as a political party, neither the Liberal party, the Conservative party, nor the Progressive party. We are not here to build up any party as a party; we are here to support the Government or to support any party that will bring forward legislation that, we believe, will be in the interest of the great masses of this country. That is our object and our attitude as farmers, and that is the position which we occupy in this House. We want better conditions for the great masses of the people, and, as I said before, a fiscal policy that will not make the rich man richer and the poor man poorer.

The Address
Mr. THOMAS E. ROSS (North Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, at this late hour it would seem almost a mistake that I should rise to speak on this debate. At the same time, there are a few thoughts which I wish to lay before the members of Parliament, and in availing myself of this opportunity of doing so, I shall endeavour to be brief; in fact, I may make the promise in the beginning that I will not detain hon. members any great length of time.
In the first place, I would like to refer to the fact that we have with us in this Parliament the first lady member of the House of Commons of this Dominion of Canada. I am glad to note that the situation is such that we have at the present time an opportunity of having our Canadian womanhood represented in the Parliaments of this country. I am glad to know also that the young lady member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) belongs to this large Progressive group of which I myself am proud to be a member. I consider that is as it should be, owing to the fact that the rights of our Canadian womanhood have been won for them by the organized farmers of Canada. The honour for bringing that about is due to the Canadian Council of Agriculture; it was through the pressure that they brought to bear that our Canadian womanhood at last received what I always contended was only their just right of which they had been deprived so long.
Yesterday afternoon, while I was listening to the speech of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. McMurray), my attention was attracted by a statement which he made to the effect that the British Empire had been built up on the foundation of personal liberty, and I take it for granted that the hon. member, in speaking of personal liberty in that way, expects us to interpret it in that broad sense of having all due respect and appreciation of the rights of others as well as being careful to see that we receive our own individual rights. To my mind, the true foundation of all national life, as well as private life, rests on practical religion, which includes not only the worship of God, but brotherly treatment of our fellow-men. If we adopt this principle as the basis and the only true foundation of success, whether in private or in national life, it will have the effect of removing from our minds the thought, and from our lives the spirit, of selfishness, and of replacing it with the spirit of service. We shall then be in the proper position to be worthy
representatives of the citizens of this great country of ours, who have committed to our hands the trust of guardianship, the responsibility of stewardship, and who are looking to us to see that this Parliament shall secure for the people of Canada a government by the people and in the interests of Canadian citizens as a whole. I hope and trust that we shall have that spirit of brotherly treatment of all men, and that legislation may be based upon the principle of equal rights to all and special privileges to none.
In looking over the Speech from the Throne, I notice that reference has been made to that decline in prices of farm products for the year 1921 as compared with those which obtained in former years. It might not be out of place for me to point out in this connection, that market values of farm products are set on the basis of supply and 'demand and not on the basis of cost of production plus profits, as is the case of many other lines of production, also that the feature of supply and demand is so greatly affected by weather and climatic conditions, over which we have practically little or no control, that it is quite beyond the score of men who engage in agriculture to regulate the market values for their products. While this may be true as to the world's market values of the products of agriculture, there is still another feature which has much to do with determining the price received by the producer and also that paid by the consumer of these farm products which are essentially classed in the lists of the necessities of life. The price re-
11 p.m. eeived by the producer and also that paid by the consumer are very largely determined by access to adequate markets and marketing facilities, also to the cost of transportation of the products from the producer to the available markets and of the system of distribution of the same. I might also say that I consider the system used at the present time in regard to the distribution of the natural products of agriculture is far from being satisfactory; that it operates to the direct disadvantage of the producer; that it is the means of greatly increasing the cost of living to the consumer, and that it is of profit, in most cases, only to many who have done little if anything to help along the real work of production. I would like to see the whole system of distribution investigated to the end that the producer and the consumer might be brought closer together, and that a system of co-operation
The Address

might be evolved which would work to the mutual advantage of all parties concerned.
I am glad that, as intimated in the Speech from the Throne, the Government have taken account of those facts; that they are already seeking to get more favourable conditions as to the sale and marketing of the products of the farm, and that they are seeking to make arrangements with the railway authorities with respect to reduction of rates upon our agricultural commodities. I hope that this "seeking" spoken of may be brought before the House in the form of proposed legislation, and I believe it will have the strong support of all parties of the House.
There is another matter which I should like to mention, in fact it was mainly because I wished to press it upon the attention of the House that I rose to speak at this late hour. In connection with the decline in prices of farm products at the present time I desire to point out that this produces a very serious condition of affairs, in its effect upon soldier settlers. Many of our returned soldiers who risked their lives and endured so much for this country to which we belong and for the welfare of humanity as a whole, stand to lose all they had as well as to have a heavy debt hanging over them, because they became settlers under the provisions of the Soldier Settlement Act and under the conditions imposed by the Soldier Settlement Board. My own personal knowledge of and acquaintance with many of these men lead me to believe that they are honestly trying to make good. Some of them, I am free to admit, have not proved to be men who are fitted to become successful farmers, but the great majority of them, I believe, are, and I have found them to be honest in their endeavours, appreciative of the consideration and assistance given to them by members of the board, and not unreasonable in their requests. I have in my possession a number of letters from soldier settlers on the farms, and I may say that they are very reasonable. They are loyal to the board and do not in any way complain of the treatment they have received. However, they feel very bitterly the situation in which they find themselves to-day. We must remember that the farms, as well as the stock and equipment which were purchased for these men who took advantage of the Government loans provided for the purpose, were purchased during the time of the unusually high prices, and that the men are now forced to place the products

of their tpil and enterprise on the market at greatly reduced market value. They have no alternative, as they are forced to dispose of whatever marketable product they may have in order at least to try to meet obligations in connection with the repayment of loans received from the Government. In my opinion, viewing the situation from the standpoint of one who is, and always has been, in close practical touch with farming conditions, especially as they prevail in the province of Ontario, the annual payment which these men are required to make is too high, in many cases being entirely beyond what they can realize on the produce which they can sell, without running themselves short of feed and of seed for the succeeding crop. I sincerely hope that hon. members will give this matter their most careful and sympathetic consideration, and that some legislation may be brought forth during the present session which will very greatly remedy the serious conditions to which I have referred. I may venture to suggest, in this connection, that at least an extension of time might be made in reference to the repayment of loans for stock and equipment, and that the regulations be so changed as to provide that the repayment of the stock and equipment loan extend over a period of ten or more years instead of over a period of four years, as at present provided. I would also suggest that the time of payihent be changed from the first of November to, say, the first of March of the following year. Those of us who are intimately acquainted with agricultural affairs know that the first of November is a very inopportune time at which to be compelled to meet payments. It is not necessary for me to go into details in that connection, because it is generally realized that this is the time when we are least prepared to meet payments, by reason of the pressure of fall work. We have not been able, possibly, to get our crop threshed and have not had an opportunity to feed our stock to fit them for the market. I would therefore ask that the date of payment be changed from the first of November to the first of March. Further, I would ask that an immediate and thorough investigation be made of the administration of the Soldiers' Settlement Act under present conditions. In this connection I shall read, in part, a letter which I received in my mail to-day from one of the soldier settlers:
Since writing you I have found out that several settlers who made partial payments

The Address
last November are practically out of feed for their live stock, have no seed grain on hand nor the means to get it..
Thanks to local help I am not in quite that predicament, but I have been talking to several neighbouring farmers, and they told me that as soon as I was assured a reasonable chance of staying on, and that the amount of payments would be so revised that I would have a reasonable chance of meeting them, that I might take some bags and they would give me some seed grain, but they wanted to be sure I was to get the benefit and that it would not be seized to help cover up the deficit from buying when everything was at its height. I feel sure that unless something is done in the next two weeks, or before seeding commences^ that several around here are going to notify the S.S.B. that they cannot support their families from the income from the cows and hens after buying the extra feed, and so have decided to quit and work out. The majority seem intent on going to the towns or with building contractors.
They expect to lose all they paid down and that there will still be large deficits. I believe an early announcement that those so situated might sell part of the present live stock to buy feed for the rest and seed grain where necessary, or that seed grain and feed would be supplied at once, would prevent a good deal of loss and trouble, and that the best of them would try a little harder to hang on and weather it out.
I know you have a great deal of very important business to transact, but doubt if any is much more urgent than at least an immediate investigation into this matter. The boys are thoroughly sick of red tape, but have all the old pep when they see a thing worth while.
This is an example of the letters received, and it also reveals the feeling that is prevalent among the soldier settlers. I do hope that something will be done at this session of Parliament with a view to relieving the serious situation in which these men are placed. In the constituency of North Sim-coe, which I have the honour to represent, there are a number of soldier settlers. This letter which I have just read was entirely unexpected. It does not come from any soldier settler in my riding, but it brings its own message, and is a statement of the actual condition in which these men are placed.
In reference to the re-establishment, medical treatment, and vocational training for former members of the Canadian forces, I feel that nothing should be omitted which might be done to safeguard the interests and promote the general welfare of our returned) men. I would especially urge that immediate provision be made for those classes of ex-service men who have been rendered unemployable through war service, and who are at present without adequate means of support; also that suitable provision be made for their dependents as well as the dependents of those reported
missing. This is a matter that closely touches me in my relationship with the riding I represent. We have many in that constituency of the class I have mentioned, and I feel that we cannot do too much for them.
Another matter to which I wish to refer is one which possibly, I think, will not be very popular with hon. members. In that, however, I may be surprised. It affords me great pleasure, in speaking on the subject of economy, to note that the Government has taken into serious consideration the question of retrenchment in the administration of the public affairs of the country, I hope that the bill to be submitted regarding the Department of Militia and Defence, and the co-ordination of the various branches of defence forces under one ministerial head, may become law. We all realize the very urgent need of strict economy in the management of the affairs of our country at this time. In this connection may I be permitted to suggest that a good place to start on the road to practical economy in public life is with our own individual personal interests. It seems to me that we might well give proof of our sincerity in this matter by introducing legislation to reduce our present sessional indemnity from $4,000 to the former amount of $2,500, and I for one am prepared to support the Government on the introduction of such a legislation. I am fully aware that the labourer is worthy of his hire and I realize also that the cheapest man so far as salary is concerned is often the dearest man in the end when ability and efficiency are taken into account. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that the increase of $1,500 in the sessional indemnity was not justifiable at the time it was made, nor is it justifiable in the face of existing market conditions as we know them to be. As I have said, therefore, I for one am prepared to support any legislation brought forward to reduce the indemnity. I may add that this suggestion is an entirely voluntary one on my part; I am in no way under obligation to my constituency to act in the matter, and they have not at any time asked me to bring it up or even suggested that I should do so. My constituents elected me not because of any pre-election promises, for I never made any, but because they were thoroughly tired of what they had been receiving in the past and were looking forward to obtaining a government by the people, an administration which would

The Address

bring down measures in the interests of the citizens of Canada as a whole. I am glad that in looking back over the events of our campaign in North Simcoe I can say that so far as the Progressive party was concerned that campaign was confined entirely to leading questions of policy and to the public questions of the day, and that we did not stoop to personalities of any kind.
In concluding, I must confess that I am inclined to be quite optimistic as to the sincerity of the intentions of the Government as set forth in the Speech from the Throne. I hope that this session may prove to be one of true co-operation on the part of all parties in the House to bring forth legislation which shall be for the advancement of our nation as a whole.
I desire to thank the hon. members for their courtesy and the patience with which they have listened to me at this late hour.
On the motion of Mr. Baxter the debate was adjourned.
On the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.
Wednesday, March 15, 1922