1923-02-06

PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 3, respecting The Royal Guardians.-Mr. Mitchell.
Bill No. 4, respecting certain patents of Leonard Clayton Ridge.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 5, respecting certain patents of Charles A. Cbannell.-Mr. German.

[Stage Direction]
Public Accounts of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1922.-Hon. Mr. Fielding.
Report of the Superintendent of Penitentiaries for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1922.-Sir Lomer Gouin.
Shipping Report of the Department of Customs and Excise; also report of the Department of Customs and Excise for the year 1922-Hon. Mr. Bureau.

Report and financial statement of the Honorary Advisory Council of Industrial and Scientific Research for the year ending March 31, 1922.-Hon. Mr. Robb.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 6, to amend the Immigration Act.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Explain, please.


Mr. NEILL:: This is the bill I introduced last year, but owing to its being near the end of the session it did not go beyond the first reading. To be brief, it presents a simple and yet complete and unassailable method by which the people of Canada can exclude any form of undesirable immigration that they desire without at the same time becoming involved in any dispute with any foreign nation or government whatsoever. In the past the trouble has been that by endeavouring to exclude any particular race or body of people by name, you immediately involved yourself in objections raised upon legal or treaty, or even sentimental grounds, by the government of the people you sought to exclude. That has always been the trouble. This bill gets round that situation without any quibble, trickery or freak legislation whatever.
Like most effective things, it is simple. The vital clauses are sections two and five. Section two provides that any immigrant from wheresoever he comes, wishing to enter Canada, shall first ask permission to do so from his country of origin. Section five prescribes that the Minister of Immigration on receiving the formal application shall arbitrarily and without question decide whether or not that particular immigrant shall be admitted. He has to give no reasons to the government under which the intending immigrant lives, and therefore there cannot be raised the objections I have alluded to.
I may mention that in New Zealand, which is always the forerunner of advanced legislation in almost any regard, this act has practically been in force for two years, and the Prime Minister of that country in introducing some report on its working made the comment that it had proved so superior to previous legislation of a similar nature-because hitherto in New Zealand they had proceeded along the lines of imposing an educational test-that he was thoroughly of opinion that its provisions would finally have to be adopted by every possession of the British Empire.
As I said, this bill hits at no one in particular, yet it is applicable to all, and can

The Address-Mr. Lucas
involve us in no international troubles. It is a very important bill so far as the interests of this country are concerned, and I might go further and state that in respect to the ultimate destiny of British Columbia hardly any more important bill could be introduced, and therefore I earnestly submit it for the favourable consideration of the government and of this House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. Putnam for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General, in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Hoey, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Shaw, resumed from Monday, February 5.
Mr. W. T. LUCAS (Victoria, Alta.):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few observations in this debate it is my wish first to join with those who have preceded me in complimenting the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. The manner in which those two gentlemen acquitted themselves reflected credit upon themselves and brought honour to this House and to the constituencies which they represent.
It is not my intention to take up the time of the House by making any extended remarks, but in view of the serious condition that prevails to-day throughout this whole vast Dominion, and believing as I do that we have responsible government in Canada, I feel it is our duty as representatives of the people to place the viewpoints of our various sections of the country before -the government so that they may be fully seized of the true conditions and endeavour to meet them in framing their policies at this time.
In crossing over half a continent in proceeding to this capital city, I came in contact with a great many men from different parts of the country, and in every conversation that I entered into I was particularly struck with the serious note that was interjected in regard to present conditions in Canada. I am not a pessimist, but I believe we would have been a good deal better off in Canada if we had had a little more pessimism in our make-up, and if the persons known as "boosters" had been classified as undesirable and rejected at the gates of our Dominion. The true optimist, in my opinion, is the man who really sizes up the situation, who
does not underestimate his enemy, and who makes provision accordingly.
I would like to comment upon what might be termed the unfair criticism that has been levelled at hon. members in this comer of the House. The right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) referred to it in the opening remarks of his address, and reference was made on different occasions last year to the Progressives leaning on the government. While I am speaking only for myself, I believe I express the view of the majority of hon. members in this corner of the House when I say that the people having at the last election placed the reins of government in the hands of new men, this new and untried government should be given a fair chance. Those who believe in British fair play will not condemn anyone without a trial. Personally I am not supporting the government, nor am I opposing it if they bring down legislation in the interests of the country.
I did not want to introduce this subject, but reference has been made to the matter of our organization, and we have been criticized by the press and in this House from the point of view of our representing a class. I am soriy that the two old parties which up to recently had represented this country since confederation did not deal with national questions in a national way, and thus compelled one class of the people to organize in order to present their views before this House-indeed, in order to protect their very existence. I say without fear of contradiction that the agricultural viewpoint was never fairly placed before the House until the Progressives sat here in large numbers.
Since confederation we have had, as I have already suggested, two parties, one known as the high tariff and the other as the low tariff party. In my recollection there has never been an election in the course of which the political football of the tariff has not been hauled out and made the main issue before the people. We were told last year that the government, being new in office, could not at that time make sweeping reductions in the tariff, but that they had taken a step in the right direction, and we were given to understand that when another session came around a further similar step would be taken. I was greatly disappointed, therefore, to note that in the Speech from the Throne no mention whatever was made of the . tariff. Irrespective of what party has been in power in the past, we have been governed by the same national policy that was promulgated in the early days of confederation. The
The Address-Mr. Lucas

argument was made last year-and it may not have been without force-that our attitude in respect to tariff might be influenced by the attitude of our neighbours to the south when they practically placed an embargo on our goods. I do not believe that we should go down on bur knees to men who will not deal with us, but I do think that the government lost one of the greatest opportunities they ever had when they did not at that time make a greater increase in the preferential tariff with Great Britain. I have here a press despatch which shows who our best customer is. It is dated August 26, 1922, Canadian Press, and says:
The United Kingdom was a better, customer of Canada than the United States for the twelve months ending with July. The total exports of Canadian produce to the United States for that period were $304,000,000, and to Great Britain and Ireland were nearly $307,000,000. These figures are the monthly summary of trade issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
The American people have practically slammed the door in the face of the Canadian farmer, leaving us with only one market that is sound, stable and steady, and that market is Great Britain. In 1922 about seven-eighths of our farm produce found a market in that country, and I think it is the duty of the government to endeavour annually to increase that preferential trade with Great Britain by building up an export trade-in other words, the task of the Dominion government should be to find new ways of promoting our inward trade with Britain as well as our outward. If we buy twice as much from the Motherland we enable her to buy more of our farm products.
We heard a great deal in this House both this year and last in regard to farming conditions. The hon. member for King's, N.S. (Mr. Robinson) last night said that he presumed that the House had to listen with patience to the tribulations of the farmer. I think it is the duty of every man who is acquainted with conditions in his own part of the country to place them before the House in their true light. I am not going into the subject of farming conditions in any detail, but I should like to place a few facts before the House regarding conditions in the province from which I come.
Of 80,000 farmers in Alberta it is said that
20,000	are insolvent at the present time. The minister administering the Drought Relief Act has 3,000 live accounts of farmers who have placed their financial affairs in his hands. This indebtedness averages $5,000 a quarter, or a total of $15,000,000. The interest average is between eight and ten per cent, and at eight per cent the yearly interest amounts fMr. Lucas.]
to $1,200,000. There is a debt of $5,000,000 for feed and seed, and $2,000,000 in unpaid taxes. As I said before I shall not go into any detail in speaking of farming conditions, because others will no doubt add something during the course of this debate, and the House will in that way get a pretty fair view of the true conditions under which the Canadian farmer works.
Lest anyone should have the idea that these lamentable conditions ejdst only in the province of Alberta, I should like to give a few figures, taken from the Bureau of Statistics, in regard to those who pay income tax. I find that 93 per cent of the farmers of the entire Dominion who are assessed for income tax are in western Canada; 46 per cent of the whole are in Alberta, and 33 per cent of the whole in Saskatchewan. The figures by provinces are as follows: Ontario, 396; Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, 12; New Brunswick, 4; Quebec, 30; British Columbia, 79; Manitoba, 1,654; Saskatchewan, 1,084; and Alberta, 2,822.
To give an idea of the prices we have to pay for our manufactured goods in the West in the line of farm machinery, I will mention only one item. In 1911 we could purchase an eight-foot binder for $180; to-day the cost is $276. Those are the conditions in which we find ourselves. It is not that we are kicking so much about the prices of our goods coming down, as against the fact that the other fellow has not come down in the same proportion we have been forced to reduce.
One of the great questions before parliament and the country to-day is our immigration policy. It seems to me, in view of the conditions that now face us, it is rather a poor policy to invite other men to come in and work under the same difficulties. We hear a great deal about our immense national debt, and when you consider the combined Dominion, provincial and municipal debts, amounting to $4,000,000,000 of funded debt, and $200,000,000 of floating liabilities no one can deny that we are living under a great burden, and I would ask the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart)-for I notice that the government intend launching a big advertising scheme for immigrants-if they intend to include in their advertisements that statement of our debt and say that the men who come here must share that load with us. We have been spending millions in the last number of years to induce settlers to come to this country, and yet, acording to the statistics that have been compiled by our own

The Address-Mr. Lucas
government department, in the last ten years over two millions of people have left Canada. Would it not seem to be a good business proposition, before spending further money to induce immigrants to come to this country first to spend a little in trying to find out why these people are leaving the country? If we pursued that policy, I do not think we should require the huge sums that have been spent to bring in new settlers. I was talking to a gentleman this fall about our immigration policy, and he told me that very often a quarter section near him becomes vacant, and as he has a brother in the Old Land his wife has often said to him, "Why don't you invite John to come and take up that quarter section, and have him for your neighbour?" But the man said: "I have lived in this country for the last twelve years, and my conscience will not let me advise my brother to leave a fairly good position over there and come here and put up with the conditions he would have to face at the present time." I say that if we can bring about a condition that will make our farmers prosperous and contented it will be better for this country than any immigration policy that any government can bring in.
Some startling figures were given yesterday as to the number of people who are leaving Canada. I have not compiled any for my constituency, but I can give the figures for the little village in which I live and the immediate vicinity. From that district 113 people left last fall, and among them are many of our good Canadian-born men whom I have known from boyhood and who understand farming conditions as well as any man. Yet they told me this fall they could not stay here any longer, that they had stayed up till then on the strength of promises that times were going to get better, but now they had to pull out. It is bad enough to lose the immigrants brought in from outside, but it is a much greater loss when our own Canadian-born boys, who have been reared and brought up in this country, and on whom we have spent our energies educating and raising them up to a position where they are ready to go out and take their place in life, leave this country for some other.
I see by the Speech from the Throne that the decennial revision of the Bank Act is due, and I trust that when the legislation comes down it will receive the very serious consideration of the committee that will deal with it and of the House. I am not a financial expert, but I have looked over some figures and I find that in October of 1920 our entire circulation was $249,000,000 and in the following three months it was reduced by $43,000,000-and remember, that was the period when in other years it was always felt that circulation had to be increased. By June of 1921, the circulation had decreased by another $10,000,000. It seems to me, when we consider that in 1904 we had 34 banks in this country, and that that number has dwindled to only 17, that our financial system is becoming centralized in the hands of a small group of men who are able to dictate the financial policies of this country to the detriment of the masses. It is often said that we have the soundest banking system in the world. But does anyone claim that there exists anywhere in the world a banking or financial system operating for the best interest of the average person? There are many problems confronting the people of Canada to-day, and for which they are seeking a solution. You will scarcely meet a man but will agree that those problems are difficult, that we are facing serious conditions; and I think it should be the duty of the government to endeavour honestly to try and find a solution for the existing difficulties and put into force the necessary remedy.
To my mind one of the remedies for the existing situation is the development of our transportation system in such a manner as will afford an easy exit for our products from this country. In that connection I would like to say that we in western Canada, especially in Alberta, are looking forward anxiously to the time when the western route for our grain, via Vancouver and the Panama canal shall be developed. Previous to 1921 very little of our grain was shipped by the Panama canal, in fact the movement was in the experimental stage. From January to October, 1921, a trifle over half a million bushels, to be exact 563,065 bushels, were shipped by that route, but during November and December of the same year the shipment was 565,699 bushels, or a total for 1921, of 1,128,764 bushels. At the end of June, 1922, that amount had increased to 7,101,802 bushels; and it is hoped that this year more than twice that amount will have been shipped by that western route through Vancouver. One of the criticisms of the Panama canal route that we hear is that there are no bottoms available at Vancouver to take care of traffic. In view of the figures I have placed before the House showing that tonnage has been available to take care of the already large shipments developed in such a short space of time,
The Address-Mr. Lucas

I think it is evident that when the freight comes there will be tonnage to meet it. With further reference to the amount of grain shipped let me quote a brief item which I noted in the press the other day, and which reads as follows:
Winnipeg, Man.-Seven thousand cars of grain have been loaded since September 1, 1922, for the western coast by the Canadian Pacific railway, it was announced here. This represents 10,234,000 bushels of grain for export from Vancouver.
Actually over ten million bushels of grain were shipped by the Canadian Pacific railway alone, so that I was well within the mark when I anticipated that the export of seven millions in the first half of 1922 would soon be doubled. And here I would like to say to the hon. members from British Columbia that I was glad to see them acting as a unit last year on one particular question. On the subject of oriental immigration they forgot their politics and worked unitedly together. I would like to see the same unity, exist in respect to this particular matter. If they are in earnest in desiring to develop this western route, and at the same time develop their own province, I hope they will assist us in seeking to increase the British preference so that when we ship grain to Great Britain, those vessels may return loaded with merchandise.
In further consideration of the western route I would like to cite some of the comparative grain rates that are in force at the present time. The average rate from Alberta to both Vancouver and Fort William is around 27 cents per hundred pounds. So that, under the present tariff, the rates to Vancouver and Fort William are on the same basis. From Vancouver to the United Kingdom the average ocean rate is 25 cents per bushel; the all-rail route from Fort William to St. John or Halifax is 35i cents per hundred pounds, or 21 cents per bushel; the ocean rate from Atlantic ports to the United Kingdom averages 15 cents per bushel, or a total rate via the eastern route of 36 cents, showing a difference in favour of the Vancouver route of 11 cents per bushel. Now, previous to this year the lake-and-rail rate from Fort William to Montreal averaged about 14 cents per bushel; but owing to the grain blockade on the lakes this fall that channel was denied us and we paid the allrail rate. In any case we pay that during the winter time, and the fact that Vancouver is a port which is open all the year round should make it apparent to the government that this subject should be given the most serious consideration at the earliest date possible, in order that when our crop has to be shipped 
next year we may be able to reap some advantage from the reduced rates.
Another matter that interests us out there very greatly indeed is the differential that exists on the mountain freight haul. Now, the people of Canada have assumed the control of our National Railway system. Whether we consider eastern Canada or western Canada, we are all assuming the burden of that great debt, and under the circumstances I do not see why the people living in western Canada, taking the territory from Alberta to the Pacific, should be paying a double burden in the shape of that differential rate to the coast. If that rate were equalized with the rest it would mean a further reduction of about 4 cents a bushel in the cost of shipping our grain. We are quite well aware that we cannot raise the price of our grain in Europe., Therefore we must follow the example of any business firm which, when it finds the price of its goods limited, immediately endeavours to reduce its overhead cost in getting its goods to the market. A great deal has been said in this House about reducing the high cost of production, and one of the things that would be of the greatest possible advantage to the farmers in the West would be some assistance in reducing the overhead expenses entailed in getting our products to their ultimate destination.
Another remedy, and perhaps one of the most effective in bringing about a change for the better, would be placing the administration of government on a strictly business basis. We have heard a great deal about economy, and it is undoubtedly one of the greatest needs of the country to-day. But how are we going to effect economy unless we work along busines lines? Take the Canadian Pacific Railway and the other large corporations which have been conducted with so much success in this country. What has been at the bottom of their success? Has it not been the fact that they have been conducted along sound business lines? We know very well that unless that system is adopted any business will sooner or later go to destruction. Whilst talking on the subject of economy and the conduct of the affairs of government on business lines, it seems to me it would be hard to expect economy under present conditions when our governments appear to be out for political rather than for business efficiency.
Since confederation we have had what is known as the National Policy, and I am free to admit that at that time, as the country was young, it was perhaps the best policy that could have been adopted for Canada. But we must admit that times are changing.

The Address-Mr. Lucas
that we have developed into a vast agricultural country, and what Canada needs to-day is a * new national policy that will not only meet one section but will meet all the interests within the country. Just as any business firm would do, we have to change our tactics to meet the changed conditions. We hear of a great many schemes being advised in many parts of the world to-day, and in fact there are so many that we often become a little alarmed and scarcely know what to do. We find that many sensible and intelligent people very often become alarmed and refuse to consider these schemes. I think when we look back over our history we will realize that we have always been changing, and that we have had to make changes to meet those changing conditions. Our life, to my mind, is like a mighty river flowing to the sea. Sometimes its course will be across wide level prairies and its advance so easy and gradual as to be almost imperceptible; again, it tumbles over rocks and waterfalls, and dashes up great clouds of foam and spray. So it is with this river of civilization. For generations, our ancestors may at times have appeared to be standing still, but they were never standing still. They were gradually adapting themselves to changed conditions.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I was born and brought up in Canada, and I think I have always been led to believe that we have had two parties in this country. But, as I stated before, irrespective of which party has been in power, we have had the same policy of protection administered to the people of the country. Owing to the very serious conditions that we are confronted with at present, I think this is the time for plain speaking, and that we should come out and face that serious situation as true Canadians. The hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), towards the close of last session, stated that the time had come when a show-down would have to be made. The people of Canada elected a new government last year on the platform on which they went before the country, and they are anxiously waiting to see how that government is living up to its platform. If you intend to keep the people of Canada along the old party lines, with the prejudices and the hatreds that we have had in the past, you have got to eliminate the educational system we are working under to-day. We have a compulsory educational system, whereby we are forced to educate our children. Are you going to educate the child to develop his brain, and then tell him he is not to use his brain? To my mind, under our old party system with its prejudices,
there was very little intelligence used in our voting; we were either Liberals or Conservatives-our grandfathers and forefathers were the same. But we are living in a different age and the people of to-day are thinking as they never thought before. If any government think they can go before the people of Canada to-day with one platform, and come down to this House and carry out a different platform, they are vastly mistaken. I have heard it stated by our public men-and I have seen it in the press-that there is a great deal of hypocrisy in our government. I believe with the hon. member for Brome that the time for a show-down has come. I think that the amendment which the hon. member from Springfield (Mr. Hoey) has placed before this House is going to force a showdown that will make hon. members in this House place themselves in their true position.
The right hon. Prime Minister has done a great deal of talking throughout the country in regard to the rights of the common people. He will have an opportunity to declare himself and to show where his interests lie. The hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), who comes from those western provinces and knows the true conditions out there, will also have an opportunity of placing himself on record and of stating whether he is in favour of the reduction of the tariff, as we have always been led to believe he was. In regard to the hon. Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin)-being a director-


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Be careful, now.


William Thomas Lucas: Being a director of many large companies, I presume he will have no interest in the common people anyway.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Very small interest.


William Thomas Lucas: In regard to my hon. friends to my right, I have a hazy recollection that I heard an hon. member say not many hours ago that they were dead.


Mr. STEVENS:: False information.


William Thomas Lucas: If that is a fact, I think the least the hon. members can do in this House is to perform the last funeral rites to that "dilapidated" portion of a once great party.
I am speaking in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, I say that conditions are serious in this Canada of ours, and I trust every member will come out in his true light and place himself in the position in which the country expects to find him. What Canada needs to-day is a bold statesmanship and men who will come out and fight for the
The Address-Mr. Carroll

same principles in this House as they advocate before the people. In conclusion let me say:
God give us men! A time like this demands Strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready hands;
Men whom the lust of office does not kill;
Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy;
Men who possess opinions and a will;
Men who have honor, men who will not lie;
Men who can stand before a demagogue,
And damn his treacherous flatteries without winking! Tall men, sun-crowned, who live above the fog In public duty, and in private thinking;
For while the interests with their thumb-worn creeds, Their large professions and their little deeds- Mingle in selfish strife, lo, Freedom weeps,
Wrong rules the land and waiting Justice sleeps.


Mr. W. F. CARROLL (Cape Breton South & Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish, in common with others who have spoken in this debate, to congratulate very heartily the mover and seconder of the Address. I have listened on seven or eight occasions to persons who have performed this duty and I in no way derogate from their ability when I say that I have never heard it more ably done than by the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Putnam) and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Rheaume). I wish also to congratulate the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) on his elevation to the position of leader of a great political party in this country. I wish to congratulate the Progressive party on their choice. They have made a good one. It has, I think, been the pride of the two old parties in this country that they have always chosen from amongst them the very best men to lead them in a public and political way. Looking back over the history of this country to confederation, I must say that both the old political parties have succeeded amply well, and the Progressive party to-day has succeeded as well as either of the old political parties have in the past.
It has been suggested by hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this motion that the Speech from the Throne does not contain enough. I am, however, one of those who think that if we do our duty by what the Speech from the Throne contains and do our duty well, we shall be here this year as late as we were last year. The Speech from the Throne suggests that unemployment is not so rampant to-day as it was a year ago. That is pre-eminently true of the part of Canada from which I come. One year ago distress, unemployment and practically starvation constituted the condition of the eastern part of Nova Scotia. To-day, I am proud to say that any man who wishes to work in the coal regions or the steel works 
in the county of South Cape Breton may have employment. In some cases it is true the wage is not large, but employment is to be had. On the 3rd of this month this news item appeared in the columns of the Sydney Daily Post:
In conversation with Robert Ingraham, manager of the local employment office, the Post learns that almost every unskilled labourer in the city has work.
And it goes on to say that there is a scarcity of that kind of labour. I am not as familiar with conditions in other parts of Canada, but I believe unemployment in this country is not as great as it was one year ago.
One matter which appears in the Speech from the Throne must be of great encouragement to the army of consumers in this country and that is the promise therein contained that legislation will be brought down to keep persons who deal in foods and, indeed, generally in what consumers require, from enhancing the prices of those commodities. In Canada, there has always been a tendency-and I do not think this tendency pertains alone to what we sometimes call mergers, trusts and combines-amongst wholesalers and retailer's to keep up the prices of the necessities of life. I hope, when this bill comes down and is enacted into law, that law will be able to lay its hand not only upon what we are pleased to call the combines, but wholesalers and retailers as well. I hope the legislation will be effective. We have had such legislation in the past, and I am sorry to say that it has not been the benefit to this country which many of us were led to believe it would be. Such legislation, in order to be made effective, must be enforced under government control. It must not be left to the say-so of a man here, there and everywhere, whether or not a person shall be indicted, if you will, punished, if you will, because he has broken the law. It is a somewhat different law from the ordinary criminal law of this country and yet our people, our legislators pay criminal lawyers to punish persons who have committed a common assault; they appoint and pay well criminal lawyers, the best in the land, to indict and to see that persons are punished who commit small, petty thefts. It is therefore, the duty of this government or some other government to see to it that persons who unduly enhance the prices of the necessaries of the ordinary consumer should have criminal lawyers at their heels to see that they get the meed of justice that is due them.
With regard to the matter of immigration, the Minister of the Interior, (Mr. Stewart) has not yet announced his immigration policy

The Address-Mr. Carroll
in this House and it may, perhaps, be a little premature for me to say very much upon that subject. There are, however, a few comments and a few impressions which I wish to make. I am one of those who do not think that we should allow free entrance into this country of every Scotchman, Irishman, Englishman or American who, perchance, wishes to come to our shores. I am not one of those either who say that we should turn away from our shores every Austrian, German, or inhabitant of one of the southern or central parts of Europe who wishes to come here. If English immigrants, Scotch immi-
4 p.m. grants, Irish immigrants, American immigrants are good, let them in; and if we do get a fairly good type of immigrants from the central part of Europe who will develop into virile Canadians, as such immigrants have done, let them in under the same conditions as the people of Anglo-Saxon countries. Much has been said regarding the advertising and publicity work which a government must do in order to induce people to come to our shores. I am afraid that in the past the mistake that was made by both governments in this country was that there was too much advertising and too much publicity of the wrong nature. I believe it is a mistake for government agents to go to any country and paint conditions in Canada as blessed. I believe that facts and not fiction should be told the intending immigrant. I fear that in very many cases the imagination of our publi- [DOT] city agents in foreign countries runs away with their better judgment, and that they paint the conditions of this country in too glowing colours. It is unfortunate that in the earlier days people were enticed to this country under false information. While I say that, Mr. Speaker, I also say that it is a mistake on the part of Canadians to spread broadcast the impression that conditions to-day are so bad with us and the tide running so low that we should not have any immigration at all. The type of immigrant that the government would rather have to-day, I presume, is he who will settle on our vacant lands or who who will hire himself out to a farmer.
Some time ago I happened to see a resolution which was passed by the East Edmonton District Association of the United Farmers of Alberta. With the resolution itself I have little fault to find, because I do not know the conditions of the Edmonton district sufficiently well to criticise their action. However, I shall read the resolution:
Whereas, we believe that the occupation of our vacant land by prosperous settlers is most desirable, the prosperous settler being the best immigration agent, and,
Whereas the economic and financial burdens on this, the basic industry, are such that it is impossible for farmers to continue to carry on under existing conditions,
We therefore wish to point out the folly of any immigration project until the aforesaid burdens be removed, because; first, any large influx of settlers would but tend to intensify for those already on the land the conditions now existing; and, second, we consider it a gross injustice to those who may be induced to come.
That resolution on its face seems to me to be all right, provided the conditions are as painted. But, Mr. Speaker, that resolution was sent to the Weekly Scotsman, a newspaper published in Edinburgh, Scotland, with this letter attached from a gentleman in the city of Edmonton, but I do not know his name. The letter reads, in part:
I should like to bring to your attention the following resolution of the East Edmonton District Association of the United Farmers of Alberta, as it may serve as a reliable guide to anyone thinking of coming to western Canada in the spring.
Speaking as a farmer myself, I advise all to stay away, as farmers are producing everything at a loss and are only staying on the land because they are too poor to move elsewhere. The reports in the papers of great crops, etc., are only put there in the interests of the grain speculators.
I do not think I am going too far, Sir, when I brand that letter as a gross libel on western Canada in particular and on Canada as a whole. The farmers of western Canada are not raising everything at a loss, and they would not all move out if they had the means of doing so. There are thousands and thousands of farmers in the West who are comfortably situated-as comfortably situated as is the capitalist in Montreal or Toronto. Therefore, I have no hesitation in branding such propaganda as a gross libel upon thg fair name and status of Canada.


Mr. KELLNER:: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? I should like to ask him what line of farming is paying a profit in Canada to-day, and also where those prosperous farmers are located.


William F. Carroll: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I know enough of western Canada to tell my hon. friend where there are prosperous farmers. I can tell him that in a twenty-five mile circle around Winnipeg he will find the most comfortably situated farmers in the world; I can tell him that stretching from the international boundary line to the city of Regina and from Regina to ten miles north of Saskatoon he will find the same class of farmers. I am not so well acquainted with farming conditions in the great province of Alberta, but I can tell him that there, too, he will find comfortably situated farmers. Surely in a country where every twelfth man owns a

The Address-Mr. Carroll

motor car, such as is the case in the province of Saskatchewan, there must be some farmers who could get out if they wanted to-they could readily use their motor cars. I find in a report issued by the government of the province last fall the following:
Saskatchewan now has one car for every twelve of its population, according to provincial government statistics. The total amount collected in license fees for the past ten years is reported as $4,226,642, while for the same period there has been spent by the government from revenue alone $6,918,517 in providing for the construction and maintenance of main market roads, ferries and revenue bridges. During the same period the provincial government had expended on capital account on main roads, bridges, etc., a total of $7,870,514.
Here is a province which in ten years has spent approximately $16,000,000 on improvements to its highways; here is a province which in the past decade has paid into the treasury $4,226,642 in automobile license fees; here is a province in which every twelfth man owns a motor car. And yet the contributor to the Weekly Scotsman says that every person in the three prairie provinces would get out if he had an opportunity of doing so. I have no doubt that the farmers of the prairie provinces have probably more difficulties to contend with than any other class of people in the Dominion. It is a new country, but it is a splendid country. It has perhaps been retarded somewhat in the past for lack of transportation facilities, and it is to-day suffering agony -may I say?-because the transportation rates are not what they ought to be. But notwithstanding all that, it must never be forgotten that our forefathers, especially in the eastern provinces, went into the woods, hewed down the trees, and raised their potatoes in the burnt lands, and their descendants forty or fifty years later were able to send their sons to college!-pioneers from whom have sprung one of the most virile races not only on the North American continent but in the world-these men inet and overcame every discouragement and difficulty, and remembering this, I believe that our friends should not be discouraged by the reverses of a year or two and lose faith in the prospects of the great Canadian West.
The thought has occurred to me that we may have in one of the present government departments some means by which the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) may be assisted in his immigration policy. This thought is not, perhaps, original with myself. I have had it in mind for some time, but I see that a gentleman who spoke some days ago at a dinner in this city expressed a similar view. In the past, as I understand it, the

great difficulty in bringing immigrants into this country, especially to the Canadian West, has been the fact that they were simply thrown on the prairies; they were not told that certain land in Alberta was suitable only for grazing, that certain land in Saskatchewan was suitable only for a particular kind of farming, that certain land in Manitoba was suitable only for another kind of farming. In short, they were strangers in a strange land. I say that we have in a department of the government the means by which at least this difficulty may be overcome. We have in that department persons whom we should send to the old country as our agents-persons who are good farmers, and not merely able to talk glibly and smoothly with a view to inducing immigrants to come to our shores. I am referring particularly to the Soldier Settlement Board. That board, anybody to the contrary notwithstanding, has done and is doing a splendid work for Canada. Their work must continue for some years, and I do not think the government can do better than engage the services of members of the staff of the Soldier Settlement Board, especially of the field men, in connection with any policy of inducing immigrants to come to western Canada. My experience has been wholly in the East, where we have a large number of the field men of the Soldier 'Settlement Board, every one of them a practical farmer. These men know the soil of the various sections of the Maritime provinces as no other men know it. In most cases they are graduates of our best agricultural colleges; and I have no doubt that the same is true of the men who have been operating in the central and western provinces. These men we still have; might we not use their services? Send them to the United States and the old country- and by the old country I do not mean England, Scotland and Ireland alone; I mean Europe or any place where good immigrants can be got. Send them over there and let them explain the conditions of farming in this country as I am afraid our present agents there are unable to do. Then, when the immigrants come to our western country, field men of the Soldier Settlement Board can meet them and explain the different conditions in the various sections. If that is done we shall not have the trouble that we had from 1900 to 1910, when people who were brought here, hoping-that in a few years they would become rich on the western prairies, were simply thrown into the wilderness of the West, in complete ignorance of the conditions existing there. The result was discontent, and if the same system is now followed the

The Address-Mr. Carroll
same discontent will be produced, and in the end there will be the same discouragement and the same emigration from the country.
The question before the House, Mr. Speaker, is, first, the motion of the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Putnam); then comes the amendment of the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey), and then the amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw). The amendment to the amendment simply asserts that the House should view with alarm the substantial increase in the national debt and make every possible effort to economize. I do not think there is an hon. gentleman on either side of the House who will have any fault to find with that amendment to the amendment. So far as the public debt is concerned, which goes into the billions, the question should be asked, have we assets to overbalance those billions? If we have, then the public debt is not such a very bad thing. As to economy, there are two kinds of economy, true and false.
I noticed on the order paper a day or two ago a notice of motion which indicates that the government proposes to expend $5,000,000 on the improvement of Vancouver harbour. Now, that is a large sum of money, and there are people who will say that that is not economy. But I ask my farmer friends from the West, I ask hon. members from British Columbia on both sides of the House, what they think on that subject. Is that sound economy, or is it false economy? Undoubtedly it is sound economy, and they will answer, that better facilities will be afforded on the Pacific coast for shipping their grain around by the Panama canal and thence to Europe. I say, therefore, that no government should be alarmed at this continuous cry of economy, economy-so long as our economy goes in the right direction. Last year the government undertook an expenditure of, I think, $5,000,000 on Quebec harbour -a large amount of money. But, surely that is true economy, because such expenditure will result in better transportation facilities for our products. Years ago the Conservative government spent millions of dollars in the equipment of the harbours of Halifax and St. John, thus making it possible for the farmer, the fisherman, the lumberman, all classes in the country, to send their products to foreign lands in the best, easiest and cheapest way. So that the government should, to my mind, look after the public services even at the cost of adding a little more to the national debt. They should not let the magnificent harbours of Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Halifax or
St. John go into disrepair because, forsooth, the expenditure of money upon them adds a million dollars to the public debt. The government should not, through the fear of adding a few million dollars to the national debt or because they are afraid of the bogey of economy, refrain from expending large amounts of money on new undertakings which are for the national good.
There is, Mr. Speaker, a problem in this country which I think the government should do something at the present time to solve. I refer to the fuel problem in this country. I am sorry that I have no really effective solution to offer myself. This present year we are told by our good friends the Americans that we can depend upon receiving only a certain number of tons of coal, and if that amount does not satisfy our demands, then we and our children may freeze. I say that is an unfortunate position for a nation such as Canada to be placed in, and it is one that the government of this country assisted by all parties should tackle and attempt to solve.
We have great coal resources in Canada. Our coal mines in the Maritime provinces are illimitable; in the West there are also magnificent resources; and I believe that they are sufficient to fill all the fuel demands of the country. Is the problem so great that it cannot be solved? I fear that we Canadians are sometimes led astray by ourselves We are too prone to criticise conditions in our own country and to enlarge upon the beauties and fine conditions in other countries. Four years ago, if you were to ask a citizen of Ottawa to throw a scuttle-full of soft Nova Scotia or New Brunswick coal into his grate, he would look at you and say, I suppose: " Do you want an explosion in my house? Do you want the beautiful faces of my children to be blackened and besmirched that their mother will not recognize them when she comes in from ski-ing?" There is a tendency in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, to disparage the qualities of western bituminous coal and of our soft maritime coal. However, a little advertising is going on. I see my hon. friend from York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) smiles, and I am bound to say it is a smile of pleasure. To-day this building in which we are seated and all the surrounding public buildings, which are heated by a common heating plant, are being heated by New Brunswick coal from Minto. Are we any less comfortable? Are our faces less clean than formerly because we are using maritime coal, instead of the American anthracite which we cannot get?
The Address-Mr. Carroll

The Public Works department is also doing good work, and has been doing it for some years, though not very many, I am sorry to say, in introducing bituminous coal for heating the public buildings as far east as the city of Ottawa, and this maritime coal was selected after very close competition with American soft coal. The Public Works department gave the contract to the Minto mines, and that was made possible through the adjustment of the freight rates that was made. If a campaign was undertaken to show the people of this country that maritime and western soft coal is just as good, if not so clean, as American anthracite, and much cheaper, we should have solved to a large extent the fuel problem in this county. I see that the government has appointed a commission to investigate this fuel problem, and I hope that it will arrive at some sensible solution. It is undoubtedly a problem which should be settled, and if it be a political problem which could be put into the hands of the present Board of Railway Commissioners, the government at Ottawa should tackle it. Freight rates must be brought down in this country in order to solve the fuel problem. It will be practically impossible for us ever to be safe as regards fuel until we are selfsupporting in that respect. I am one of those Canadians, Mr. Speaker, who do not wish to be at the mercy of a foreign nation, however friendly that nation may be, for the bite that I eat or the coal or wood that I burn to keep myself and my family warm.
The Welsh miner is taking advantage of the conditions in Canada to-day. Of course, I would far rather see the Welsh miner making inroads upon the coal trade of Canada than the coal operators of some other country. A few days ago there returned to England Sir D. R. Llewelljm, one of the greatest coal owners in Wales. He had just made an extended business tour in this country to investigate fuel conditions, and I understand that as a result of his investigation immense depots are to be built at Montreal and other places in Canada for the handling of Welsh coal. They have transportation down to a nicety, because he reports that on the question of freightage coal could be carried from British Channel ports to Canada and the New England States for $2.50, as against $4 for transport from Pennsylvania.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the government of this country, assisted by the representatives of the people in parliament, could undertake no more pressing problem in Canada to-day than this one of our fuel requirements and how they may be supplied. No better service

could be done by this parliament for the present and future generations than to give some of its time during the present session to the solution of this problem.
The standing committees of this House include a committee on mines and minerals. I have been a member of that committee for seven years, but the remarkable thing is that during that period it has never met except for organization purposes. And yet that committee, among other subjects, deals with one of the very essentials of Canadian life. Might it not be a wise thing for the government to consider the advisability of placing before the Committee on Mines and Minerals, as now constituted or otherwise, the question of a fuel supply for Canada? I advance this suggestion in all earnestness, believing that it deserves a fair meed of consideration at the hands of the government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken somewhat longer than I intended. The hon. member who preceded me-


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Before the hon.
member leaves this question, which is a very important one, may I ask him to give the House his views regarding the possibility of preventing the stoppage of mining through strikes. I ask my hon. friend, could a method be devised for overcoming this difficulty?


William F. Carroll: That is a big problem,
and I am not going to tackle it just now. Strikes have been resorted to in this country for many years, and I have no doubt there will continue to be strikes long after my hon. friend and myself have passed away. I agree with the hon. member that the problem is a serious one. I agree that there are times in certain industrial fields in this country where strikes do some good. I also know there have been times when strikes in other industrial fields in this country have ruined operators and men alike. I am not against the strike as a weapon in the hands of men to better their conditions in life. Neither am I against the strike as a weapon for any legitimate purpose for which the various unions my think proper to invoke it. However, the question is a big one, and I shall not undertake to discuss it any further at the present time.
The hon. member who preceded me referred to the wants, the ambitions, and the aspirations of the farmers in this country, and assured us that these were never looked after or considered until a few years ago, when they themselves undertook to organize a political party. I am bound to say that the farmers themselves best know their own requirements

The Address-Mr. G. Black
and how to fulfil their own ambitions and aspirations. Nevertheless, I would point out to my farmer friends that the Laurier government went down to defeat in 1911 fighting the battles of the farmer. I am also bound to say that when we talk of the East being against the West, and the West against the East, that was not the condition during the reciprocity campaign of 1911. The Liberals carried every seat in the island of Cape Breton, which is an industrial, coal mining hive, notwithstanding the fact that the reciprocity agreement made provision for the reduction of the duty on coal. At that time we fought the battles of the farmers of the West and of the farmers of the East-we fought for the farmers generally throughout the country. I have no doubt that to-day the farmers, organized as they are, are well able to fight their own battles, but where are they going for better markets? A year ago the country to the south erected a tariff wall against the products of this country, a tariff wall which is absolutely prohibitive so far as the products of the farmers are concerned. Where are our farmer friends going for larger markets? They cannot get into the United States at the present time; and surely they do not ask us as free born Canadians to let. down the tariff walls of Canada at a time when our products are debarred free entrance into the country td the south? Speaking solely for myself I consider that the government have undertaken to solve this problem by the best method which lies in their power. Our neighbours to the south met us with high tariffs. The Minister of Finance went to Washington a year ago, but there was no use in dickering any longer, the Canadian people having turned down the reciprocity pact. Accordingly members of this government crossed the seas to Europe, hoping to find there some solution that would afford relief to the farmers of the West as well as of the Canadian people generally. There lies the solution of the problem with respect to wider markets if wider markets we need.
The question of whether there should be a reduction in the tariff is one for the government of this country to consider. I have no doubt that the Minister of Finance and his colleagues will be able to advance adequate reasons why no mention has been made of the tariff in the Speech from the Throne, but I wish to say this: As good Canadians, as broad-minded Canadians, as Canadians who have at heart the interest of our country as a whole, we should unite in every possible way in order to find a solution for the problems which confront us. For only
in that way may we hope to fulfil the aspirations of those who made Confederation possible. In that way we shall best develop this country and make it a happy and prosperous land for our children and our children's children. In that way likewise we shall be doing the work we were sent to this parliament to perform.


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, at the very outset of the Speech from the Throne His Excellency the Governor General refers to his visit to the Yukon territoiy, the constituency I have the honour to represent in this House. I am sure it will be very satisfactory to Yukoners to learn from this public declaration that Their Excellencies retain pleasant memories of that distant country, and to know that the willing efforts of the people of Yukon to make the viceregal visit an interesting and comfortable one evidently met with success. I can assure you, Sir, that the keen appreciation displayed by Their Excellencies in the somewhat unique conditions under which the people up there are living, in the history of the country, and in the hopes and plans of the people for the future, won the hearts of all with whom they came in contact. The name of General Byng, Commander of the Canadian Corps, national hero, was already a household word in Yukon; but by meeting Lord and Lady Byng, the man and the woman, hundreds of Yukoners were able to understand and to share the admiration in which the distinguished soldier is held by so many thousands of Canadians who served under his leadership.
I join with the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) and the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) in regret that the Speech from the Throne is of necessity so barren of any statement of substantial achievement by the government in the improvement of Canadian affairs. I cannot say that I am very much surprised at that necessary absence, because I am not one of those who expected that a change of government would usher in the millennium. Coming into this House for the first time as a member at the last session of parliament, at a time when industrial conditions in Yukon were in a most unsettled condition, when the great industry of mining was in a transitory state, when new developments undertaken up there were of somewhat doubtful results, I hesitated to call the attention of members of this House to that part of the country, and I think members of the government with whom it was my duty to negotiate for assistance in development

The Address-Mr. O. Black
will bear me out that I did not paint to them a too glowing picture of the prospects of that country. To-day, I am happy to say, the situation is different. I can speak with assurance that the existence of a very highly mineralized area has been demonstrated; no failures have been encountered. Everywhere that development work was undertaken in that area rich high-grade permanent mines have been established and the returns have been highly remunerative. The population of that section of the country has greatly increased and the general population of Yukon Territory is also increasing. Prosperity is returning and the people are filled with an optimism for the future. That is the condition of affairs in at least one section of Canada. -
Now just a few words to give a general idea of that country. I find that the members of the House of Commons are, after all, just representative Canadians, and that the average Canadian has a very hazy idea of conditions in that northern section of Canada. That is not to be wondered at, in view of the unwarranted quantity of slush that has been published on the subject, some of it very readable, highly entertaining and unduly sentimental, having somewhat the same effect in conveying ideas of the country as the eloquent language used by the mover of the Address here a few days ago in regard to the Acadians and their unfortunately necessary removal from the land of Evangeline. Doubtless those and similar ideas were founded on or greatly influenced by the picture so beautifully painted in that poem of Longfellow's, written, in my opinion, on false premises and by no means conveying a correct impression of actual conditions in that place at that time. Beautiful to look at, but not quite accurate. Many people associate the Yukon only with the Klondike gold excitement of a quarter of a century ago and think of it as a land of icebergs and fearful hardships. Most of those yarns of hardship were told by early gold-hunters, and more recently by globe trotters seeking to attract attention to themselves. I will give the House an instance. In 1914 at . Dawson I met a lady going through the country on the ordinary tourist's trip. She had come up the coast in one of those palatial coast steamers operated by the Canadian Pacific Company. She had crossed the pass in an up-to-date observation car and come down the river in a very comfortable passenger steamer. She was well received and accepted the hospitality of the people. In 1917 I heard her addressing the Royal Canadian Institute in London, 
and I was astonished to hear her state that she was the first white woman who ever made that trip, as late as 1914 and when in fact thousands of women had preceded her to that country. She told of the perils of crossing the pass. She did not mention the observation car, but she stated that on going ashore at the very peaceful town of Port Simpson she was obliged to fly for her life to escape from hostile Indians. Of course such a thing never occurred; you could not blame the Indians if it had. I have told this story just to show how these yarns are started. The Yukon is the extreme northwestern point of Canada. Its northern boundary is the Arctic ocean, on the south British Columbia, on the east the Northwest Territory and on the west Alaska, that long strip or pan handle of Alaska that cuts us and a large portion of British Columbia off from the sea. The Yukon has no seaboard except the Arctic ocean. Everything taken in or out of the Yukon must pass through Alaska either through the port of Skagway at the head of Lynn canal, that wonderful arm of the Pacific ocean, or around by the coast of Alaska to the Bering sea and up the Yukon river from the port of St. Michaels. Owing to international bonding privileges, we have not suffered up to date any great inconvenience because of having to pass goods through the United States territory, but at the present time a rather awkward situation exists in that regard.
Yukon handles the liquor question much as it is handled in the province of Quebec, or, perhaps, more correctly stated, on the same system as British Columbia. It abolished the bar; it, allows no private sales of liquor. The local government, sell it all, and do not permit liquor of any kind to be sold in the hotels or restaurants. They differ from British Columbia in that they are willing to stick to the goods of the Old Country distillers. They do not try to put off on the public any home brew of the local commission as liquor. The United States interpretation of the Volstead act prohibits the transportation of liquor across any part of the United States, consequently they block the Canadian government in Yukon from taking liquor into that part of Canada. It is an arbitrary stand not taken for cause so far as Yukon is concerned, for the liquors were imported from British dealers, unloaded from British ships direct to the railway cars and within three or lour hours crossed the Alaskan pan handle into Canada again. There has been no illicit dealing in Alaska from those shipments, and the United States' laws have been strictly com-

The Address-Mr. G. Black
plied with. How long the United States intend to maintain that, in my opinion unreasonable, position, we cannot tell. That remains to be seen, but I am in hopes that this government will be able to induce them to recede from their present position.
The area of Yukon is about 200,000 square miles, and I should like hon. members to note that, of that area of 200,000 square miles, only about one-third has been explored. Of that one-third, only about one-half has been prospected for mineral, and from that one-sixth of that territory, we have produced to-day over $200,000,000 in gold, or almost one-half of the total output of gold from Canada. When you realize that that amount comes from that small atea, you will understand what wonderful possibilities there are for the future in those thousands of miles which show indications of mineral deposits.
The Yukon, as such, was created by act of parliament in 1898. Its boundaries were defined; it was cut out from the Northwest Territories. The Yukon Act became its constitution. The country was given a court and a local government. The court had three judges, the three sitting in appeal from judgments of any one of the three. Later that was changed and the court reduced to one judge, appeals now being made to the Court of Appeal of the province of British Columbia. The local government was composed of a commissioner and council. At first the council was appointive, consisting of the senior judge, the officer commanding the mounted police and other officials. The commissioner is directly under the authority of the Minister of the Interior of the federal government. In time the appointive council was done away with and an elective council introduced. The council has practically the same legislative powers as the legislatures of the provinces. It has no cabinet; the executive power is entirely in the hands of the commissioner. During the war, for purposes of economy, the membership of the council was cut down to three members, although it should be four, more properly to represent the whole country. I understand the government has that change under consideration, and I strongly recommend its adoption. During the war, the office of commissioner was discontinued, the duties of that office being vested in the gold commissioner or chief mining recorder without additional pay, and this arrangement still continues. The official residence formerly maintained in the territory for the accommodation of the commissioner was closed up during the war, and it remains closed. The number of officials was materially reduced and offices were co-ordinated. All this was done in the interest of economy and to reduce expenditure of public money and the cost of government.
The climate of Yukon has always been a fruitful source of story telling. We really have there about five months of warm, bright summer weather. The rivers open early in May and do not close again until late in October or early in November. For three months of the summer we have con-5 p.m. tinuous daylight and for two of those months we have almost continuous sunlight. This accounts to some extent for what is considered the remarkable speed of plant growth; but when one considers the quantity of sunlight to which a plant is exposed, the speed of growth is not so wonderful. The winter season on the whole is not so bad. Each winter we get a few weeks of extremely cold weather with the thermometer down to about sixty below; but that does not last and, indeed, some winters we escape the extreme cold weather altogether. The snow fall is light.
The Yukon is almost exclusively a mining country, everything else, including agriculture, depending upon the mining industry. It is true that agriculture can be successfully pursued, but that depends entirely on the success of mining. The country is so situated that there is no possibility of raising agricultural products for export; therefore you are limited by your local market. All sorts of vegetables can be grown splendidly. Wheat, oats and barley may be ripened, cattle are successfully bred and raised for beef; hogs locally bred and fattened on locally grown barley can be had on the market, and during the past year farmers have undertaken the experiment of sheep raising. Horses are wintered out, and without any artificial feeding or artificial shelter come through in good shape in the spring. That cannot be done in eastern Canada.
The Yukon is not looked on as a country to settle in; but a great number of splendid families have been raised there, and fine healthy children have been given their primary education, up to and including examinations for entrance to the universities. Upon entering the universities or going into the various walks of life in other parts of the ,, world, they are found to be as well equipped with education as other young people of their ages. Good schools have been maintained in Yukon from the very earliest days.
ss

The Address-Mr. G. Black
Yukon, as a big game country, is unsurpassed ; it abounds with moose, caribou, mountain sheep, bears and, unfortunately, wolves. The fur trade is an important factor and large shipments of marten, mink, fox, ermine, otter, wolf and bear are made annually. Game birds are plentiful and myriads of migratory birds breed there every year. Fur-farming is assuming important proportions. Fur-farming struck the territory as a fad as it did other parts of Canada; fabulous prices were paid for breeders, and some investors were stung. But it is down now to a business proposition and some people have persevered with intelligence and are now producing annually good silver-gray and black pelts at a handsome profit.
As I have said, however, mining is the chief industry, the back-bone of the country, the industry to be fostered and encouraged. It had its hard knocks during the war. A very interesting statement was made yesterday by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) in regard to the reduced purchasing price of a bushel of grain. I could give just as interesting and, I think, a more startling statement as to the reduced purchasing power of an ounce of gold on account of war and general conditions. The cost of everything used in mining went up 100 per cent, and in some cases more during the war. The value of gold, the price of gold remained stationary; it did not go up with that of other commodities. Consequently, the miner was hard hit; but those conditions are changing, and prosperity in the mining business is returning.
With the news of the big discovery of gold in Yukon in 1898, thousands of people rushed in. there from all parts of the world. There was plenty of gold; it was easy to get by the most primitive methods. The wilderness was transformed into a hive of industry. Many fortunes were made by individual effort. Gradually the cream of the rich "pay" was taken off, then capital stepped in and purchased- practically the whole known mining area. Good cash prices were paid, coal mines wtre opened up, hydro-electric power plants were established, fleets of gold-mining dredges were put to work in the valleys, and water was brought to the mines from long distances by a system of ditches, flumes and syphons. Tens of gold were dredged from claims which had supposedly been worked out. The operation of the mines by dredging and hydraulic did not entail the employment of nearly as many men. as the old method did, consequently those who had become rich or obtained a competence by their own efforts in mining, or from having disposed of their holdings, 
removed to other parts of Canada and to the United States. The output of gold from twenty million dollars a year gradually lessened until now and for some years past it has remained stationary at about a million and a half dollars a year. It will remain at that figure for many years to come, although liable to be increased at any time by new discoveries. The history of other placer gold camps is repeating itself up there-lode mining is developing. In 1919 a wonderful discovery of silver ore was made about 150 miles from Dawson city, and as I said at the outset of my remarks silver mining is fast assuming large proportions and is bringing an increase of population.
The chief difficulty to be contended with is the cost of transportation and lack of telegraphic communication. I have brought these and other matters to the attention of the ministers in whose departments they are dealt with, and I am free to say that I obtained fairly satisfactory results from the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart). But the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) before authorizing the modest expenditure required to connect the silver camp with the government telegraph line preferred to "wait and see" how those mines turned out. That was characteristic caution on his part. Well. I am glad to be able to tell him that the most optimistic predictions in regard to those mines made by miners and engineers are being realized and the time has arrived when he is amply justified in giving those people communication over the government telegraph lme.
Now, hon. members may say: How does the prosperity or otherwise of Yukon affect the rest of Canada? Let me show them. The Yukon is part of Canada. Its people are one hundred per cent British and proud of it. They are a healthy, energetic people, maintaining themselves at the very outskirts of civilization-true pioneers developing a wilderness. There is no poverty there; there are no paupers, there is no distress. There is no unemployment; there is work for all who want to work-and no one can stay there who does not work. There is no returned soldier problem. Yukon's returned soldiers who were lucky enough to get back have all been re-established. They were welcomed back by employers and by the people generally. The percentage of enlistments from Yukon was very high indeed, as also were the money contributions to patriotic purposes during the war. Unfortunately the casualty list was correspondingly high, and the war left its scars on Yukon families just as it did on other Canadian families.
FEBRUARY 6, 1923	S9
The Address-Mr. Fielding
The Yukon has produced hundreds of millions of dollars in gold and silver, and will proceed to increase that output. As a business proposition the Yukon is a good thing for Canada in this way. We have up there nothing but mineral resources and sufficient timber to carry on our mining and build houses. We have to buy everything else from other parts of Canada. We have the mineral, but you have to feed us and clothe us. In return, we have the gold and silver which we can dig up to pay for our food and supplies. All our flour, bacon, sugar and everything else in the food line, our clothing, our boots and shoes, our mining equipment, our machinery and tools have to come from other parts of Canada. These figures are impressive. The Yukon has imported and used over 300,000 tons of Canadian-made goods, and paid for them, $100,000,000 cash. We have to have your goods, and you have to have our cash. That is a home market worth having and worth keeping. Over a thousand tons of goods went into that new silver mining camp last year. They will all be used up by spring, and then we will have to get more from the manufacturers and merchants of Canada. In addition to that 300,000 tons of Canadian goods taken in there, probably a greater quantity of foreign goods was purchased, for the American west coast cities are very active in following up that trade, an example that might very well be followed by our own people. You can see at a glance what a customs revenue that importation means.
The Yukon is not a tradition or a thing of the past, it is not a played out or worked out mining camp. It was hard hit by the war, but it is coming back. It has a community of wonderful people, face to face with nature, developing the great mineral resources of the country, and their success of necessity redounds and adds to the general prosperity of Canada.



TREATY WITH ITALY

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance), the debate was suspended and the order for Motions called to permit of the following message from His Excellency the Governor General being presented:
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons a copy of a convention respecting commercial relations between Italy and Canada, entered into at London the 4th day of January, 1923, between His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas and His Majesty the King of Italy.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, the House reverted to the Order of the Day.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: Mr. Speaker, it is not my desire to review generally the Speech from the Throne or the debate which has arisen on the Address in reply thereto. Much that has been said during the debate might, I think, properly be said at a later stage in connection with the budget. However, we must deal with some of these questions now.
Let me say that with the eloquent tributes that were paid by the three leaders to the memory of our departed comrades; with the good words of welcome offered to the new members; with the cordial congratulations offered to the member for Colchester (Mr. Putnam) and the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Rheaume) in regard to the moving and seconding of the Address, and last, but not least, with the tributes paid to the sterling Scottish character of our friend, the member for Brandon (Mr. Forke)-with all these things I would desire to associate myself.
I wish now to proceed to the subjects which I think, call for special mention on my part. First, I want to invite the attention of the House to the remarks of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) in relation to the tariff. My right hon. friend had a good deal to say about averages. Averages are often useful, but sometimes they are misleading, and I am inclined to think that in his search for averages my right hon. friend allowed himself to be misled and unconsciously helped to mislead the House so far as the impression has been conveyed that there had been no material reduction of customs duties. My right hon. friend says that the government collected $88,000,000 of customs tax on an importation of $506,000,000 as against a collection of $78,000,000 on an importation of $502,000,000 the year before. Then with some other remarks he proceeds to say:
A tariff that averaged 151 per cent up to the end of 1921 for that fiscal year, now averages . . . when the sales tax is put on at the boundary, 17.5 per cent over the whole scale.
As my right hon. friend puts it, it would almost seem that he was including the sales tax in the first year but not including it in the second. However, I think perhaps he said a little more than he intended, for I find the figures he gives with regard, to customs duty, apart from sales tax, work out the increase to 17-5 to which he has referred. But my hon. friend forgot to mention several things which are necessary to a proper under-

The Address-Mr. Fielding
standing of his averages. In the first place, he forgot to mention that in giving the figures for the calendar year it should be had in mind that, at the most, during only six months of that .year was the new tariff in application. For at least six months of the twelve on the basis of which he made his computation, the old tariff, with all its virtues-if they were virtues-was still in operation.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I did not have reference to the twelve months at all; my figures were for the first nine months of the fiscal year, from the first of April to the end of the year. I had them officially from the department.


William Stevens Fielding: I think my right hon. friend's figures were for the calendar year.


Arthur Meighen: No, onlv from the first of April.


Mr.   MELDING@: I think my right hon. friend is mistaken. He may look into that, but my impression is that the figures he gave were for the calendar year. However, that is only one point, and perhaps not the vital one. But another point is that the valuation of the goods is a very important consideration in the working out of averages. If all our duties were levied on the ad valorem principle it would be easier to make fair comparisons of averages. But a large portion of the duties is collected under the system of specific duties; we levy so many dollars or so many cents, as the case may be, per ton, per barrel, per pound, or according to whatever unit the trade is accustomed to handle. When the value of these goods varies you get a very different result in the matter of averages-a result that may easily be most misleading. For example, in the year 1911 the duty on the staple article of refined sugar, converted into ad valorem- for it is a specific duty-yielded a rate of 24 per cent and a fraction; in 1921 the duties showed an average of 13 per cent. Apparently, then, there was a great reduction of duty-24 per cent in 1911; 13 per cent odd in 1921. But in reality there was no reducton of duty-on the contrary, the sugar duties had been doubled. They were 87 cents per hundred pounds in 19'll, producing an ad valorem rate of 24 per cent; they were $2 per hundred pounds in 1922, producing an ad valorem rate of only 13 per cent. What is the explanation? When the valuation is high the specific duty works out a small percehtage, but when the valuation changes your percentage changes. Take an article costing $100. A specific duty which, converted into ad valorem, produces 25 per cent, remains the same when the same article later costs $200, but your average is reduced because it is applied to $200 instead 
of to $100. Now, all through these calculations it is necessary to observe the variations in value. We had high valuations, and the duties imposed on the basis of those valuations produced certain results. We are now passing through a time of low valuations. Prices are falling; some of us are glad, and would like to see them fall still further. But when the value of goods falls, then undoubtedly there is an apparent increase in your average rate. As a matter of fact, you may have a low average rate when your taxation is high, and you may have a high average rate when the taxation has been reduced; and so it will be found in this case. I say it is important, therefore, that in looking at this question of averages we have regard to the changes in the values. With the exception of tobacco, cigars and cigarettes, every change made in the customs tariff last year was a revision downward.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman permit me before he goes further? Will he not admit that it was when valuations were high, and consequently the incidence of duty low, that he moved to reduce the duty?


William Stevens Fielding: The motion to reduce
the duties has been carried out.


Arthur Meighen: With regard to sugar?


William Stevens Fielding: No, not that particular item. I do not think I ever moved to reduce the duty on sugar. I did vote for a resolution that it was desirable to reduce the duties upon as many articles as possible, and we did reduce a large number, we did reduce a great many duties last year. My right hon. friend told us at one time that the reductions were microscopic and at another time that they were molecular. But I noticed that, having described them as microscopic, he turned to the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) and warned him that these changes in duties were going to cause the workmen of Brantford to be idle in the streets. So my right hon. friend easily adapts himgelf to conditions.
Now, that view of matters may easily be enlarged, but I think I have said enough to show that before you treat seriously these values one needs to look into them more carefully and make an analysis-


Arthur Meighen: I may say I have here the figures from the department showing the months I quoted, and the statement I made in interruption of the hon. gentleman is absolutely right.


William Stevens Fielding: Does my right hon. friend say that his figures were not for the calendar
year?

The Address-Mr. Fielding


Arthur Meighen: No. They were only from the first of April-the fiscal year, just as I said.


William Stevens Fielding: Well, even so, there would b.e three months of that year under the old tariff; is that correct?


Arthur Meighen: April. May and June? No.


William Stevens Fielding: The change was not made until the last of June.


Arthur Meighen: In May.


William Stevens Fielding: The tariff bill making effective the changes embodied in the last budget was passed, I think, on the last day of June or thereabouts.


Arthur Meighen: But does the budget not take effect from the time of the making of the budget statement?


William Stevens Fielding: In some respects it would. There were many changes; but my right hon. friend must know that tariff changes do not immediately produce reductions. Increases of tariff reach the consumer very quickly, but reductions are slower to reach them. The good results of the reductions that were made in the tariff last year will become manifest from time to time. If they were not fully manifested in the short time between the date of the passing the tariff bill and the close of the calendar year, there is very much reason to believe that if we are only patient in the matter we shall find good results still following.
Now I turn to a statement made by my right hon. friend regarding an increase in the national debt. He said we increased the debt last year by $45,634,000. He will admit that In that case he did certainly refer to the calendar year. Am I not correct?


Arthur Meighen: I gave the dates.


William Stevens Fielding: Now for purposes of
comparison it is always better to take the fiscal year. These statements are published from month to month and have some value, but they really ought not to be taken very much as a basis of calculation. There are periods early in the year perhaps when the revenue comes in freely and expenditure is not very large. Indeed, there have been cases where at such a -time you will show a decrease in the public debt; but it would be very unfair to assume that that represented the whole business of the year. But since my right hon. friend prefers to take the calendar year I am going to take the calendar year too.
According to his statement we increased the public debt in that year by $45,634,000; but he overlooked an important point. Of that calendar year only nine months at all events were under the fiscal control of this government. For the first three months of the year this government had no power over the finances. The right hon. gentleman and his friends made the estimates, they carried them through committee here, and carried the Supply Bill. They enacted all these things; they gave directions for the expenditure, they 'made contracts, they carried on all the business for the fiscal year, and all we had to do coming into power in mid-winter was simply to pay the bills as they came in. Down to the 1st of April the finances were controlled under the budget and tariff and policy of my right hon. friend and his friends, and for three months of the twelve at all events, this government had no particular responsibility. However, I am going to waive that.
But my right hon. friend forgot to mention something more. He forgot to mention the part that the railways played in this matter. He says that we added in that period $45,634,000 to the public debt, but he forgot to mention that in that year we provided for the railways-I have the exact sum here, but I cannot find it at the moment-


Arthur Meighen: Far less than the year
before anyway.


William Stevens Fielding: If we added $45,000,000
to the public debt for that twelve months, for only nine months of which were the expenses under our control, may we not place it in comparison-I shall not go back to the war years-with the year 1921, when there was an addition to the public debt of $92,000,000. Then in the year 1922 there was an addition to the public debt of $81,000,000.


Arthur Meighen: No, 1922 was the year I gave. The hon. gentleman was in power then.


William Stevens Fielding: The year my hon. friend gave was the calendar year 1922, not the fiscal year I am giving now the figures for the fiscal year. In 1921 the administration of my hon. friend increased the public debt by $92,000,000, and in 1922 to the 31st of March by $81,000,000, and if we in the last year have got the increase down to $45,000,000, as compared with $92,000,000 and $81,000,000, I think it is a record we need not be ashamed of.


Arthur Meighen: You did not have 22,000 miles of railway to put in shape.
The Address-Mr. Fielding


William Stevens Fielding: Unfortunately the 22,000 miles of railway which was willed to us is the cause of our troubles every year. Without these railway obligations we would be able easily to provide for all our public expenditure and have a balance to the good, I say that in this present year-I do not want to anticipate the budget and speak too positively-but speaking broadly, and subject to later correction, this year we shall be able, if you leave aside the railways, to provide for all the ordinary expenditure and all the capital expenditure and all the war expenditure, for everything but the railways, and have a balance of some thirty odd millions to the good. That is the amount we shall be able to show as a surplus, if you care to call it a surplus under these conditions.


Arthur Meighen: Will not the hon. gentleman be good enough to say that last year on the same basis of comparison the surplus was $35,000,000?


William Stevens Fielding: No, the comparison I have given my hon. friend is correct:


Arthur Meighen: Thirty-five million dollars, if you leave out the railways.


William Stevens Fielding: This year we are providing $67,000,000 for the railways.


Arthur Meighen: Far less than before.


William Stevens Fielding: If you separate the railways from the other expenditure we could conduct the affairs of the government this year and provide a surplus of about thirty odd million. I do not want to enter into a long discussion of who is responsible for the railways. 1 think there is a large degree of responsibility resting on my hon. friends opposite. They at all events were responsible for wishing upon us the Canadian Northern, and for taking over the Grand Trunk under conditions which have landed us in the midst of great trouble.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman - say that his government did not authorize the construction of the Canadian Northern and the Transcontinental and that the contracts were not all made under his government?


Mr. GRAHAM:: Not in British Columbia.


Arthur Meighen: That is the best part of the system.


William Stevens Fielding: I have already said that there would be differences of opinion upon that point. I do not think the Laurier gov-
ernment made any mistake when they decided to have a second transcontinental.


Arthur Meighen: A third.


William Stevens Fielding: The time had arrived when we wanted competition, when we wanted a real transcontinental railway from ocean to ocean on British territory-and we did not have it before. The Laurier policy in that respect, in the main, was a sound one. The cost was more than was expected; we all know that. Practically every public work costs more than the original estimate. This building, under the administration of my right hon. friend, has cost twice as much as was estimated. Every public work has cost more than was expected, and nobody is going to be much alarmed about that. But I say that the Canadian Northern as a prairie enterprise was a good enterprise, and if the promoters had been content to operate it as a prairie road, utilizing other connections with the East, things would have gone much better for them and the public at large. I say that the second transcontinental was all right, but the third transcontinental railway was regrettable from every point of view. For the first stage of that, for the eastern part at all events, the Liberal government was responsible.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend says, " hear, hear,' and it is true. But I want to say that the hon. gentleman and his friends were responsible for carrying it through to the Pacific coast, and incurring all the expense of mountain construction. Does he say, "hear, hear," now?


Arthur Meighen: 
William Stevens Fielding: I say, like Mr. Mantalini, it is the "demnition total" that is the cause of the trouble with which we are dealing. The result is that for this present year of our Lord we have to provide $67,000,000 for the railways, and but for that we could come to the budget and show a surplus of $30,000,000 or $40,000,000. If we are going to have this question of debt talked of all the time, let us never forget that this debt is upon us year after year because of the railway obligations.
My hon. friends sitting in the Progressive district are very warm sympathizers as a rule with national ownership, but when they come to an expression of their views, let them

The Address-Mr. Fielding
bear in mind that national ownership may be a good thing, but like many other good things, it is rather expensive.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman explain then why he does not get rid of national ownership and carry out the pledges of so many members of this government?


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot speak for anybody but myself. I do not understand that there was any pledge on the part of this government to get rid of national ownership. I have understood that some members doubted the wisdom of it, but they are all prepared to give national ownership a fair trial. That is the attitude they have assumed from the beginning towards national ownership, and that is the attitude they are assuming to-day.


Arthur Meighen: If it is the right thing,
do not complain about the cost of it.


William Stevens Fielding: Well, there are differences of opinion as to whether a thing is the right thing or the wrong thing; men may honestly differ in that respect. What one man may think right, another thinks wrong.
I am not enamoured of national ownership myself, but I realize that we are in for it and we had better make the best of it honestly and give it a fair trial. I have grave doubts as to whether national ownership can be as successful as some hon. gentlemen would like it to be. If you advocate taking our railroads out of politics, do you know what it means? It means taking them out of the control of the people, out of the control of the people's representatives, and putting them into the hands of some irresponsible body. The idea seems to be that this parliament of Canada would be content to vote sixty, seventy or a hundred million dollars every year-turn that money over to the National Railway Board and ask them to make the expenditures. I can tell my hon. friends who are so full of national ownership that the time will come-it may come at any moment- when they will find difficulty because of this board set up between the people and the government. When that time comes the people will brush aside the board and they will come to the government, and whether you like it or not you will discover that these railroads have to be in politics, because politics is the business of the people.
Another point in connection with my hon. friend's speech. Not only did he say that we are increasing the debt but-shocking to say-we are increasing our obligation to the United States instead of getting the money at home from the Canadian people. That is based upon a fallacy which I want to dissent
at once from. The idea that you ought to get your money at home-and it is a good thing to get it at home-may be carried too far. It was a good thing during the war. When we needed money so desperately it was a good thing to appeal to the Canadian people, and we are all proud of the response that came, we are all proud of the revelation it gave us of Canada's financial strength. But that was a war effort. The war stirred the patriotism of the Canadian people; but if you were to renew the appeal to-day you would not get the same response. Now, there are several reasons why it may be wise to go abroad for your money at times. You may go abroad first for the simple plain business reason of getting it cheaper. We, for example, quite recently adopted the rule of going to our own people for our money. We offered a conversion loan of $178,000,000 among our own people. The greater part of it was taken up, but we had to pay our own people 5+ per cent, and we had to pay certain expenses,-large advertising expenses. I have not attempted to figure it out, but I am afraid the money cost a good deal more than 51 per cent. We placed $100,000,000 five per cent bonds in New York a short time ago. We sold them at a price which made the cost a little over five; I think 5.12 or 5.13 was the computed rate; and I am going to put it to cold blooded people-to Scotch people in view of what I have said about my good friend the member for Brandon-that when you get good honest money in New York for 5.12 per cent why do you want to pay nearly 6 per cent for the privilege of asking your own people for money?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member will
do me the justice to say that I introduced that with reference to the speech made by the Minister of Justice, who stated that we owed the United States so much in 1921 that we were drifting towards annexation.


William Stevens Fielding: No, my right hon.
friend did not say that.


Arthur Meighen: Oh yes.


William Stevens Fielding: I think I have what
my right hon. friend said. What he may have had in the back of his head I do not know, but what appears on Hansard is the simple statement that we were increasing our obligations and increasing our obligations to the United States. That was our great offence.


Arthur Meighen: I referred to the speech of the Minister of Justice.


William Stevens Fielding: My right hon. friend, in the speech to which I am replying, to the best

The Address-Mr. Fielding
of my knowledge, made no allusion to the Minister of Justice. However, it does not matter whether he did so or not. At all events he preferred the charge against us that we were borrowing money in the United States, that is the plain thing. I want to say it may be good policy to borrow money there simply because you get it cheaper. Another reason: Canada must' continue to be a borrowing country. A country that is only partially developed needs money for many things. We want money. Capital is necessary for our development. If you are going to lock up the surplus money we have at home in government bonds, where are you going to get the money for mortgages, farm improvements, for business enterprises, for the thousand and one things we need for the development of Canada? Therefore I say, both on the ground of economy,- having regard to the rate of interest and having regard to leaving a reasonable capital at home for the development of our country -from either of these viewpoints it is good policy at times to go abroad.
But I want to tell my right hon. friend that his practice was better than his preaching. He preaches here against borrowing money .in the United States, but in practice he and his friends borrowed in the United States and they borrowed a great deal more than we borrowed too. The Canadian government, in a period of a few years, issued in the United States securities, I think, to the amount, including ora own, of $490,000,000, and $370,000,000 of that, if my memory serves me, was issued by the Conservative government. I think they were wise in issuing those securities. We have issued $100,000,000 in one general loan, which I have described, and we issued a couple of small loans. I admit there was a little difference in the way the thing was handled. My hon. friends opposite, a few months before they went out of power, issued two guaranteed railway loans and - shocking to say-they sold them in the city of New York. My right hon. friend must remember that. He and his colleagues committed the great crime of selling in New York. That is not all; they sold in New York at a price which gave to the buyer the opportunity to make $4 on the hundred in one case and $3.50 on the hundred in the other. When we had a similar loan we sold on terms which gave the buyer a profit of 59 cents on the $100. There are at this moment about $210,000,000 of securities outstanding in New York, and about one-half of this almost was issued by the late government. So again I say to my right hon. friend that his practice was better than his preaching. 
He condemned us for borrowing money in New York but he also borrowed money in New York and I am glad he did so because I think it was a wise policy to pursue.
I notice too that my right hon. friend made a statement with regard to the sales tax which I think he ought to regret. He stated:
They have added to the revenue of the country something, I have not the exact figures, but it must run into tens of millions, by the imposition of a sales tax fifty per cent greater than the sales tax they found when they came into power. That is 'a tax that is placed upon the backs of everybody in this Dominion. All who use the necessities of life must pay their share of the sales tax.
It would have been inconvenient if I had asked my right hon. friend to mention what are the necessities of life which are paying this sales tax-he might have difficulty in doing so. I am going to weary the House a little by giving a list of the exemptions from the sales tax, and it is fair to say that these exemptions, in the first instance, were given by his own government. All we did was to increase the volume of the tax-as we had to, and I am going to speak of that again-and we increased the exemptions. We are told by my right hon. friend that we have imposed on the people of this country tremendous burdens that bear on the necessaries of life. Will the House bear with me for a few minutes while I read the list of exemptions. I think it is just as well to publish the list. It is one of those things buried in public documents, and not very easily understood by the public generally.
Provided aiso that the taxes specified in this section shall not apply to sales or importations of:-
Bread; flour, including self raising Hour, oatmeal, rolled oats and commeal; rolled wheat, buckwheat meal and pea meal; animals living; live poultry; meats and poultry, fresh; milk including buttermilk, condensed milk, evaporated milk, and powdered milk; cream; butter; cheese; oleomargarine, margarine, but-terine or other substitutes for butter; lard, lard compound and similar substances, made from animal or vegetable stearine or oils; eggs; vegetables, fruits, grains and seeds in their natural state; bran, shorts, middlings, alfalfa meal; oil cake, oil cake meal; grains mixed or crushed for cattle or poultry feed; hay, straw; hops; nursery stockand so on. I will not read the whole list, it would take me ten minutes to do it. Practically all the necessities of life, including fuel and feed, are exempt from the sales tax. Yet my right hon. friend, in a moment of weakness, said that the taxes on the necessities of life under the sales tax, are breaking the backs of the poor people.


Arthur Meighen: With my hon. friend's experience in the House, I do not think he should mis-state what I said. I said that everyone who used the necessaries of life paid

The Address-Mr. Fielding
his share of the sales tax. Those words are strictly and literally true. All necessities of life are not taxed. Those who use the necessities must pay their share of the tax. Clothing is a necessary of life and it is taxed, and many other necessaries of life are taxed. My words are strictly true.


William Stevens Fielding: I am going to take what Hansard says on the subject. It is a misfortune for some of us that we have a Hansard.


Arthur Meighen: No.


William Stevens Fielding: Outside of parliament, when some unhappy public man has said some foolish thing he can afterwards blame it on the reporter. We cannot do that here. We have to be held responsible for our words. Referring to Hansard I see what he said was-
That is a tax which is placed upon the backs of everybody in this Dominion.
The word "everybody" includes himself and myself.
All who use the necessities of life must pay their share of the sales tax.


Arthur Meighen: Hear hear. Is not that true?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend seems to enjoy jt so much I am going to give him the pleasure of listening to it again. He said:
That is a tax which is placed upon the backs of everybody in this Dominion.
He used the word "all" in one case and "everybody" in the next case. You cannot use any two more comprehensive words in the English language. He said:
That is a tax which is placed on the backs of everybody in this Dominion. All who use the necessities of life must pay their share of the sales tax.


Arthur Meighen: Is that not true?


William Stevens Fielding: I have read a long list and my hon. friend will almost tempt me to read the whole of it now, but no, I will not do it. Nearly all the foodstuffs, light, fuel and practically what was broadly speaking called the necessities of life are free from the sales tax.'


Arthur Meighen: I stated that everybody paid his share of the tax. Will the hon. minister tell me of one individual who does not pay his share of the sales tax?


William Stevens Fielding: All who use the necessities of life must pay this tax. I say that all who use the necessities in the case of the articles I mention pay no tax.
Now, Mr. Speaker, these are the three things that I particularly desired to draw attention to. First, my hon. friend's remarks on the tariff, and secondly-


Arthur Meighen: What remarks?


William Stevens Fielding: On the increase of trade, and the horrible crime we committed when we borrowed money in the United States.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member be good enough to read my statement where I said it was a crime, or where I criticised it at all? I have looked up Hansard and I do not see it.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member said distinctly "They have increased the obligations of the country"-


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: "-and they have done it by increasing their obligation in the United
States."


Arthur Meighen: That is true.


William Stevens Fielding: Surely, that is a compliment if he puts it that way. Was he contemplating moving a vote of confidence in us for doing it? Are we to take all the other statements in his long speech in a Pickwickian sense?


Arthur Meighen: No, in the sense I made them. I said they had increased our obligations to the United States. That is absolutely a fact. Why does he read into it a criticism on account of going to the United States instead of going into Canada?


William Stevens Fielding: What was the object of saying it if it were not by way of criticism?


Arthur Meighen: I stated the object a
moment ago.


The SPEAKER:: Order, order.


Arthur Meighen: I will not allow the hon. member to read anything into my speech. He can take any sentence from beginning -to end and he will fail to prove it incorrect, just as he failed a moment ago.


William Stevens Fielding: I must confess that
when I made that remark it never occurred to me that my hon. friend all the time was making these statements as a compliment. I thought he was delivering a criticism of our action.


Arthur Meighen: So I was.


William Stevens Fielding: I see now it is a mistake. He said we were doing all these things, and he meant them all in a Pickwickian
The Address-Mr. Fielding

sense, and probably that being the case it is hardly fair that I should take them seriously, but I have been paying him the compliment of believing he was serious.
I want to say a few words regarding the two amendments which have been submitted to the House. The general sentiment contained in these two motions is largely of a sound, sane and sensible character. In its proper place, much that is contained in these amendments-in their general sentiment rather than in their exact words-we might be able to subscribe to. Much that may be said at the proper time, in its proper place, with approval cannot win approval when it is said in'the wrong place. The hon. members who have moved these resolutions have, I think, made a mistake as to the time and place of moving them. They are the best judges of that. The resolution of my hon. friend from Springfield (Mr. Hoey) follows largely a resolution moved in the interests of the Liberal party in the House several years ago.


Arthur Meighen: Two years ago.


William Stevens Fielding: I would like to remind
my hon. friend that there was another motion made by the Liberal party at a later date which he would do better to take as a model if he wants to take a model. In the year 1921, which was the last year of opposition, the year preceding that in which the Liberal party came into its inheritance, we moved a resolution in the House, and I am going to read it, because that is the resolution on which we appealed to the country. We went to the country in the period following the adoption of that resolution, and not only did we of the Liberal side vote for it, but my hon. friends of the Progressive party who were then in the House did us the honour of voting for it also. It recites in general terms what we supposed to be the condition of the country. I think perhaps I had better read the whole of it. It reads:
That, while recognizing that existing financial requirements of the Dominion demand the maintenance of a customs tariff, the House is unable to concur in the declarations by the government that the tariff should be based, on the principle of protection; the tariff is a tax, and the aim of legislation should be to make taxation as light as circumstances will permit;
That the aim of the fiscal policy of Canada should be the encouragement of industries based on the natural resources of the country, the development of which may reasonably be expected to create healthy enterprises. giving promise of enduring success;
*" That such changes should be made in the customs duties as may be expected to reduce the cost of living, and to reduce also the cost of implements of production required for the efficient development of the natural resources of the Dominion.
Now comes a paragraph to which I desire to invite attention and which had escaped (Mr. Fielding.]
the attention of my hon. friend from Springfield when he prepared his amendment. If he had had the resolution of 1921 before him he would have noticed this very important last winding up clause, and you know the last clause, like the postcript of a lady's letter, is the most important thing. That clause reads:
That while keeping this aim clearly in mind, the House recognizes that in any readjustment of the tariff that may take place regard must be had to existing conditions of trade and changes made in such a manner as will cause the least possible disturbance of business.
The policy set forth in that resolution was the policy adopted by this government. It was adopted and carried out in the budget of last year, and it will be the policy we will keep in mind where circumstances will permit. I am sorry to find my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has tried to convey the impression that the reductions that were made were of no importance. I showed you a moment ago that there were stages in the debate when he thought they were important. There were considerable reductions, which, if looked upon in a fair manner, would, I think, entitle this government to a large measure of credit. With the exception of the duties on tobacco, cigars and cigarettes every item in that long list of changes was a revision downwards. It is important to note that. Shall we have further reduction? That is a question upon which I am going to have an open mind, and I am going to advise all others to have one.
With regard to the tariff problem to-day, especially when we consider what is going on in the neighbouring republic, there are conditions which are going to present the tariff question to us as a matter of more than ordinary difficulty. Therefore, I think every man in this House will be wise if he maintains upon this question an open mind. For myself, it is my desire to approach the question with an open mind, ready to hear everything that can be said for or against reduction, and then to come .to the House and give the matter the best judgment that I can. I think there never was a time when it was more important that we should realize the truth of that remark attributed, I think, to an American statesman, that I have quoted more than once-[DOT]" It is a condition and not a theory that confronts us." There are in the life of Canada to-day conditions which are not to be disposed of by any mere reference to theory or to what A, B or C may have said at some time or another. There are difficult conditions, in the handling of the tariff, more difficult, more serious, probably, than we have had in former times. So I ask

The Address-Mr. Fielding
hon. members to agree with me that this is not the proper time to consider them, and when the proper time comes, we will give hon. gentlemen opposite an opportunity to bring forward these motions if they so desire.
So far the only thing that we have been able to present to the House in the way of tariff proposals is the treaty with France. I am not magnifying its importance; but whatever change it makes, it is a reduction of the tariff, and, therefore, it is a carrying out of a promise. There is set forth in that treaty a long list of articles with regard to which we provide that the intermediate tariff will govern, subject to a discount of ten per cent on the duty that would be collected. In the case of a duty of 30 per cent, supposing $30 were due and you take off 10 per cent, you reduce the duty to $27. On another list, not so long, but very comprehensive, there is provision for a discount of 15 per cent. Therefore, even this session we are acting in line with that resolution by trying to reduce the duties where we find it possible to do so.
My hon. friends who have moved these resolutions have, I think, failed to understand the gravity of the position that is presented. There are times and subjects upon which a government can well afford to accept suggestions from any quarter, because none of us has a monopoly of wisdom. On a thousand questions that may come up in the House any sensible government is aware that it may learn from members who may be opposed to it; and so in cases of a minor character, the government is willing to receive suggestions and amendments, and even on the critical question of a motion for supply there are cases where a government may, without humiliation, accept amendments. Those are cases which are provided for according to our constitution. But I cannot conceive-and I think such a case would be rare -of a self-respecting government which is prepared to accept any amendment on a motion for an Address in reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor General. What is the motion before the House? It is a simple resolution, politely acknowledging the Speech which His Excellency has kindly addressed to this House and giving him an assurance that whatever matters are brought before us will receive our respectful consideration. Are there any fireworks in that, any dynamite in that, any alarm in that, anything that any member in the House cannot properly vote for without any amendment? The first duty of the government is to provide that the Address to His Excellency shall pass, and things which would be accepted on their merits at another time cannot be
accepted then. I say at once, I do not believe you will find a case, certainly not in our Canadian political history, where any government has accepted amendments of that land on a motion to pass an Address to His Excellency. I think the hon. gentlemen who moved these resolutions have acted hastily- I am not presuming to judge them-for several reasons. I think they are not taking the best opportunity of discussing these things. There is a time and a place for everything, and the time for discussing the questions which they have raised would be in the budget debate, much better, I think, for them and much better for all concerned. But of that they must themselves judge.
What do these resolutions call for? Economy and tariff reduction. Lower tariff, economy- these are fine sentiments. We all recognize the desirability of economy. Last year I had occasion, to point out the different angles from which the question of economy is viewed. I pointed out that sometimes an hon. member is found advocating economy in loud tones, and then coming in and wanting a large expenditure in his particular constituency. My hon. friends of the Progressive party are only human after all; they are not free from that little weakness. They proclaim they want economy, and at the same time they tell us they want large expenditures on terminal elevators at Montreal and Vancouver. These cost money. How are you going to have economy if you are going to build them? Then we had the charge of increasing the public debt. My hon. friends of the Progressive party talk about economy. They are sincere; they want economy; but there is a motion on the order paper for an expenditure at once to finish the Hudson Bay railway. They are only human like the rest of us.


Mr. HOEY:: That would be an economy.


William Stevens Fielding: Some years ago when I was campaigning with the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier in Ontario, I passed through a little country town where they paid us the compliment of putting up a quantity of decorations. On one which was set across the street I read this motto, which I have never forgotten : " Wise expenditure is true economy." That is sound. My hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) gave us some splendid illustrations this afternoon; but when hon. gentlemen ask for these expenditures, how can they be regarded as consistent if they vote for this resolution condemning an increase of the national debt? How can you reduce your national debt if you are going to carry on all these things?

9S

The Address-Mr. Fielding


Mr. MORRISON:: Building the Hudson
Bay railway is not really an expenditure; it is an investment. We contend that it will pay for itself.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, it is an investment, my hon. friend says. My hon. friend reminds me of a chap in our boyhood days who had a pitch and toss arrangement. He would cry: " Come up, boys, it is not your money we want, it's your patronage."


John Morrison: All we have been
getting so far from the government is promises, instead of patronage.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is hard to please. We have given him large and numerous reductions in answer to his demands for them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And notwithstanding his vote against them.


William Stevens Fielding: He did not mean to vote against them in detail. He only voted against them in their totality, which he thought was a different thing. I am not saying that everything has been done that everybody has asked. Few of us get all we want in this wicked world, but I think it would be well for us that we should express appreciation of what we do get. We may well be thankful even for small mercies, coupled with the expectation of better things to come.
Let us not be afraid of the debt. My hon. friend from South Cape Breton treated that this afternoon in a very serious way. Canada is a country requiring a great deal of development; we are not a new country, but we are still a partially developed country, and if we are to meet the demands arising in all parts of the country, I do not hesitate to say that you cannot reduce the public debt at the present time. I take the responsibility of saying that. The late government-and I am not throwing any rocks at them-had to increase the public debt by $92,000,000 one year, the next year by $81,000,000, apart from war matters, and we confess that we shall have to increase the debt this year largely, though not to quite as large an amount. It is folly to pretend, in these pressing times of development and great needs, that you can carry on the business of the country without any increase of the public debt. Such a thing is an ideal to have in mind; we are all the better to have such ideals and to strive for them, even if we cannot reach them, and it is the duty of any Minister of Finance to make an earnest effort to see that the national debt is not increased more than is necessary. The figures which I have given you will, I think,

show that we are acting on that principle. If we had to be afraid of somebody coming every year and saying: "Oh, you are increasing the public debt," then we would be at a standstill. This is a new country. This is a live, go-ahead country. New problems are arising.
New occasions teach new duties;
Time makes ancient good uncouth;
They must upward still, and onward,
Who would keep abreast of truth.
There are things to be done in Canada, and I hope and trust the government will have courage to do them, in the belief that wise expenditure is true economy.
There is a more serious side to these amendments. I was amazed to find my hon. friend from Calgary West (Mr. Shaw) say that this is not a vote of want of confidence. It is an extraordinary idea for my hon. friend to entertain. I want to tell him and all others that, as I said before, while there are many questions upon which a government may properly invite and welcome suggestions, when you come to a matter of passing this simple, respectful Address to His Excellency the Governor General, there can be no compromise, and I say again that no self-respecting government will stand and accept an amendment anything like that. When all these things are considered, I hope that the hon. gentlemen who moved these resolutions under the impression that they do not involve want of confidence will accept my statement when I say frankly and sincerely that they do involve a vote of non-confidence, with all the consequences that may arise therefrom.
This much is clear, Mr. Speaker. If this government does not possess the confidence of this House and of the country, there is no other group in this House that can. That much will be admitted. So if either of these motions should pass, it would impose consequences upon this government of the gravest character. Are we to have political chaos in this country? Are we to have political conditions such as may be found in some of the turbulent states of Europe where governments rise and fall, and come and go, and their supporters fight each other on the floors of their legislative chambers, and do such other things as bring parliamentary institutions into contempt? No. This is:-[DOT]
A land of settled government,
A land of just and old renown,
Where Freedom slowly broadens down From precedent to precedent.
And precedent tells us that we cannot accept these amendments. If my hon. friends on futher reflection think it is their duty to move

The Address-Mr. Bancroft
them, it is not for me to find fault. I hope they will see their mistake and withdraw them. Again I say, if these amendments are carried, there is one course open to the government. You will produce a condition of political chaos in Canada which is not good for the Conservative party, which is not good for the Progressive party, which is not good for the Liberal party, and which is not good for the state. But, whatever the consequence of this may be, this self-respecting government cannot accept the amendments referred to.
On motion of Mr. Bancroft the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the House adjourns, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. Mr. Fielding.
That on Wednesday, the seventh instant, and subsequent Wednesdays to the end of the session, the House will meet at three o'clock in the afternoon.
That is instead of two o'clock as the Rules at present prescribe. I have spoken to my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) and the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) and neither of those hon. gentlemen will take exception to the government moving this motion if it assumes responsibility for so doing.


Hewitt Bostock: Under ordinary circumstances, according to the Rules, I would have to ask the right hon. gentleman to give two days' notice, but by unanimous consent the motion may be put.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 6.15 p.m.
Wednesday, February 7, 1923.