1923-02-07

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the House that I have received from the Chief Electoral Officer the statutory report of the by-elections held during the year 1922, printed pursuant to section 72 of the Dominion Elections Act.



REPORT PRESENTED

[Stage Direction]
Detailed statement of all bonds and securities registered in the Department of the
Secretary of State for Canada, as provided by section 32, Chapter 19 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906.-Hon. Mr. Copp.


[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 Tuesday, February 6.
Mr. L. P. BANCROFT (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate in reply to the Speech of his Excellency, I wish first to deal briefly with the speech delivered yesterday afternoon by the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll). I want to compliment my hon. friend upon that speech; it was a good one, and I heartily agree with nearly everything that he said. But I cannot quite agree with some of his remarks in connection with matters concerning western Canada, and I wish, if I may, to make some reference to that part of his speech.
Referring to a letter written by someone in Edmonton to a Scottish newspaper, my hon. friend asserted that the statement contained therein was exaggerated. I agree that it was exaggerated, but I contend that my hon. friend's comment in that connection was exaggerated also. He stated, according to yesterday's Hansard:
There are thousands and thousands of farmers in the West who are comfortably situated-as comfortably situated as the capitalist in Montreal or Toronto.
If the farmers of western Canada, of Manitoba particularly, are as well situated as those gentlemen to whom my hon. friend referred, why is it that the Manitoba reports show that there were 4,000 fewer farmers in that province last year than there were the year before? The reports show that there were 55,000 farmers in Manitoba in 1921 and
51,000	in 1922. I submit, therefore, that the figures do not agree with my hon. friend's statement. In designating the location of the farmers who, my hon. friend alleged, were so prosperous, he described a circle with a radius of twenty-five miles around the city of Winnipeg. Now, the constituency which I have the honour to represent adjoins Winnipeg on the north, and I have an intimate knowledge of at least a great part of the district included in that circle; my own farm, in fact, is very close to it. I would invite my hon. friend, when the session is over, to come west and look into this matter for himself. I will show

The Address-Mr. Bancroft
him around a part of that circle and I will defy him to find a farm there, with the exception, perhaps, of a few dairy farms, that has paid operating expenses in the last three years.
My hon. friend referred also to the number of motor cars in Saskatchewan. Some of my hon. friends to the right say, "hear, hear." It is a common idea on the part of certain people in this country that a farmer should never sit on anything but a wagon box. I do not believe in that, Mr. Speaker. Being a farmer myself I maintain that a serviceable automobile, obtainable at a reasonable price, has become a necessity in modem farming. My hon. friend said that every man in twelve in Saskatchewan had an automobile. I do not think that is enough. In a province where farming is the basic industry-it is practically the only industry there-in a province of great distances-and I know something of those distances, for I homesteaded there thirty-two miles from the nearest town-in respect to a province such as that I would reverse my hon. friend's statement and say that only one out of every twelve had a motor car. I think that would be nearer the mark. Furthermore, in giving those figures, he did not state what proportion of these cars had passed through the hands of the bailiff. He gave us no idea of the number of motor cars owned by men who had moved in there, and purchased perhaps with the money they brought in with them. I maintain again that the motor car has become a necessity on the modern farm.
Another question with which my hon. friend dealt was the United States tariff on farm products; and in dealing with that he asked in effect, what could the Canadian government do to remove the United States tariff against our farm products. I would make this suggestion to my hon. friend and to the government: that the best way to get rid of the American tariff against our products is to reduce the cost of production in this country, and if you do that, there will be a clamour in the United States against the tariff which raises the cost of production in that country.
The condition of agriculture in Canada today is not wholly the result of the reconstruction period through which we are passing, nor is it due to post-war conditions generally. If you go back to the years prior to the war, you will find that agriculture at that time was on the down grade. In the years 1912, 1913 and 1914 the farmers of western Canada were selling their grain below the cost of production, and had it not been for the war intervening, the government would have had to deal several years ago with this same situation that
I Mr. Bancroft.]
confronts us to-day. The net prices received for grain on the farm this fall were similar to those of 1911. Yet in 1911, as was pointed out by my hon. friend from Victoria, Alta., (Mr. Lucas) yesterday, we could buy an eight-foot binder for $180 and to-day the same binder costs us $276. I submit that about the same comparison could be made in connection with most of the articles that enter into the cost of production on the farm. Coupled with this was the fact that in those years many immigrants rvere coming into the country, and many young men who were taking up homesteads were willing to work on the farms at a very reasonable rate in order to acquaint themselves with the local methods and conditions. When we compare the period before the war with the present time, and realize that in those earlier years men were being forced off the farm in no small numbers, it will give us some idea of the deplorable condition that agriculture finds itself in to-day. It is a well-known fact that for years in this country success or failure on the farm has depended largely on the amount of free labour a man could command in his farming operations. When a man's family was small and he had to hire every bit of help required, he invariably had a hard time getting along, but as his family grew up and furnished for a few years free labour on the farm, that was the time the farmer got ahead if he ever did get ahead. I submit that there can be no permanent prosperity in this country while this condition exists, so long as the great basic industry of Canada is dependent for its success on free labour. The fact is, the fiscal policy of this country is not a sound one for the development of our natural industries. That policy was evolved at a time when the Red River valley the most fertile valley in the world, was the principal grain-growing area of western Canada. It was evolved at a time when municipal taxes were negligible, when labour was cheap, when the land was clean; and all these things contributed to a low cost of production. But to-day municipal taxes in Manitoba are in the vicinity of one dollar per acre, due to the extension of roads, and the building of bridges, drainage and schools; and the high cost of transportation and of the necessities of life has raised the cost of production to a point where farmers are quitting the farms in large numbers. There are four thousand less on the farms in Manitoba to-day than a year ago. I submit that that is a serious situation, and one that requires careful analysis, and until we have found out the reason why these men are deserting the farms

The Address-Mr. Martell
in such large numbers, it is useless to talk very much about immigration.
May I deal for a moment, not with immigration, but with emigration, and some of the causes that have contributed thereto? There should be no tax in this country on woollen clothing, which is a necessity in a climate such as ours. Yet we find that clothing and blankets are taxed as high as 35 per cent under the general tariff, and from 20 to 25 per cent under the British preference. That is little short of a crime in a climate such as ours. We find that boots and shoes are taxed from 20 to 30 per cent. Take the case of a farmer' with a large family, situated two or three miles from school-the average distance in western Canada being two miles. Consider the difficulty this man has in trying to clothe his family to withstand the rigours of the Canadian winter in the face of these taxes; and the figures I have quoted do not tell of all the taxes that the farmer has to pay, because the tariff tax is added at the factory, and the factory price increases something like 100 per cent by the time the product reaches the consumer through the ordinary channels of distribution. Therefore, the consumer pays about double the amount of the tairff tax quoted in the schedule. Can we conceive of anything that would tend more to drive men out of this country than the hardship this man's family is forced to endure under these conditions? I maintain that the tariff tax on woollen clothing has done more to drive people out of this country than any other single factor. The whole tax on necessary clothing and boots and shoes should be wiped out in the interests of humanity and in the interests of common sense. A tax on woollen goods might be all right in Florida, but it is decidedly poor business in Canada. The Canadian people voted overwhelmingly at the last election for low tariff, and I submit that they are in no mood to be trifled with. The government should start their reductions at once, and start them on the great necessities-cotton and woollen goods, and boots and shoes.
I have followed with interest the statements of those who suggest mixed farming as a remedy for our economic ills. Many of those who advocate such a policy however overlook the fact that the problem of mixed farming is inseparably bound up with the problem of wider markets. Take the livestock industry for example. In the Winnipeg stockyards last fall cattle sold for as low as 4j cents a pound for prime steers, and one cent a pound for fairly good cows in an unfinished condition. In the city of Winnipeg also, potatoes sold for as low as 20 cents a
bushel. The American tariff practically prohibits the shipment of these products to the .United States. Now, in view of these facts, to suggest a wholesale reversal from grain to mixed farming is simply adding insult to injury. Furthermore it is well known that thousands of farmers in this couniry are prevented from keeping hogs and sheep because of the tax on woven wire fencing which, through the medium of tariff and sales tax approximates 25 per cent. I say that the whole problem of mixed farming is inseparably bound up with the problem of wider markets. If you will give us markets and reduce our cost of production, there will practically be no limit to Canada's capacity to produce farm products. Better trading and better international conditions go hand in hand. International commerce tends to bring about a better feeling among all nations. Every satisfied customer that Canada has in foreign countries constitutes a bond of peace between us and those countries; and I think the idea of a bond of peace can be applied also to - Canada in a national sense as well as internationally. If the manufacturer in eastern Canada felt that he was getting the farmer's products at their real market value and if, on the other hand, the farmer felt that he was getting the products of the manufacturer at their value in the markets of the world, it would result in creating a bond between them which would make for national solidarity-a bond, Mr. Speaker, which would strengthen the chain forged by the Fathers of Confederation, which is now gradually weakening.


Mr. L. H MARTELL (Hants):: It was not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to intervene in this debate, but in the course of the discussion things have transpired which have made me feel that it is my duty, representing as I do an agricultural constituency in the province of Nova Scotia, to say a few words from the standpoint of a member from the Maritime provinces. It is customary, I believe, to extend congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address. I am sure that while I am a young parliamentarian I can do that with a great deal of gratification. Particularly do I feel that I have the right to congratulate my next door neighbour in the political arena in the province of Nova Scotia. The hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Putnam), in the course of his very excellent disquisition, paid a tribute to the honour that was bestowed upon his constituency by his being selected to move the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and as a Nova Scotian I sincerely congratulate my col-
The Address-Mr. Martell

league from that province upon his speech. Most worthily did he uphold the honour of the province from which we both come. Unfortunately I am not familiar with the language of old France, and therefore I could not comprehend all that was said by the seconder of the Address. It certainly must seem rather a paradox that I, descended from French Huguenots, cannot understand the language of my forebears; but judging from the fluency and grace displayed by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Kheaume), and from the manner in which his remarks were received by his colleagues from Quebec, his address was both eloquent and convincing.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard many references to those of our membership who have passed beyond the veil since last we met. When I came into this House last year- although I am the baby, so to speak, of the Maritime representatives-there were some four or five members with us who to-day have passed beyond the veil because "the finger of God touched them and they slept." I was not exceedingly well acquainted with the late hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Stewart), with the late Hon. Mr. Kennedy, and with the late Mr. Lafortune, but of the late Dr. Blackadder, I can speak with authority. We had stumped together in promulgating the principles of Liberalism as followers of the great chieftain, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and to-day it is to me a great sorrow that he is with us no longer. In thinking of him, the words of the poet recur to my mind: "Although he is absent in body, he is present in spirit." Perhaps I can best give expression to my regard for Dr. Black-adder in these lines:
How can I cease to pray for thee dear heart! Where'er in God's great universe thou art to-day Can He not reach thee with His tender grace;
Can He not hear me when for thee I pray?
Somewhere thou livest and hast need of Him, Somewhere thy soul seeks higher heights to climb, And somewhere too there may be valleys dim, Which thou must cross to reach the heights sublime.
Then all the more, because thou canst not hear Poor human words of blessing, will I pray,
O true brave heart! God bless thee Whereso'er in His Great Universe, thou art to-day.
Divers things find mention in the Speech from the Throne. It is true that criticism has been uttered by some hon. gentlemen opposite because certain matters have been omitted; but the Speech from the Throne is not supposed to contain all the legislation that will probably come before parliament. There is, however, one particular matter upon which we are to legislate this session in which I, as a representative of one of the most his-

toric constituencies in the Dominion, am personally interested-that is the question of redistribution. I stand here representing the historic constituency of the county of Hants. With the prosperity that has come to various sections of the Dominion, Hants, through no fault of her own, has lost in population, with the result that the constituency which in days gone by was the scene of Joseph Howe's greatest battles is to be amalgamated with some other constituency in the province of Nova Scotia. In this regard there is one plea I wish to advance: At the time confederation was brought about it was undoubtedly understood that the representation in this parliament should be founded upon the basis of the four original provinces. It was never intended-I do not believe, Sir, it was ever in the minds of the Fathers of Confederation- that any of the four original provinces should lose part of their representation. The other provinces which were subsequently carved out of the western country are going to get a greatly increased representation, and that increase will	be	at the expense ofeastern Canada which has borne the burden	and	heat of the day.
So I believe, Sir, that this is the proper time for us to take into consideration and endeavour to secure for the older provinces an irreducible minimum as regards representation. True, some of us will be told that we are governed in that particular by the British North America Act. I admit that that is the case. But if we have borne the burden and heat of the past, if we at the expense of the East have built up the western country, in return the western country should be prepared to come to our aid and to say: The Fathers of Confederation did not foresee there was a danger of the West overruling the East, and we are prepared to come to your aid and join you in any petition asking for an amendment of the British North America Act which will guarantee to the people of the East an irreducible minimum of representation in the House of Commons.
My hon. friend from Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) yesterday in the course of his very excellent address dealt with the problem of immigration. You will permit me, Sir, to be somewhat laudatory of Nova Scotia and to say that I was extremely proud of the fact of being a Nova Scotian after hearing his address, eloquently delivered and replete with sound logic and good common sense. After listening to him, the hon. Minister of Finance, and other speakers of the day it was pleasing for me to recall the words of Tenny-

The Address-Mr. Martell
son so far as the Minister of Finance is concerned :	.
At last the Master Bowman, he,
Did cleave the air;
Who but bent to hear
His rapt oration, flowing free.
I was indeed proud of my native province as I listened to one of our youngest members from Nova Scotia and to our grey-headed veteran who is our leader in the Maritimes.
Some hon. members in the course of their speeches referred to	our	railway	problem.I admit, Mr. Speaker, that whether our National Railway system should be under government ownership or not is no longer a debatable question.	The	government	is
pledged to a fair trial of government ownership in respect to our National Railways. It is not my purpose to give expression to my own personal views, but if I were to do so I would say, without fear for the consequences, that I am absolutely opposed to government ownership of our railways; but as the government is pledged to give a fair trial to government ownership I, as one elected to support that government, am bound to see, so far as the power within me lies, that the government is supported to that end.
Tidy friends from the West are clamouring for the construction of the Hudson Bay railway; in fact, they want railways built for themselves. You know, Mr. Speaker, that our western friends are in no way sectional: They do not ask anything for the West; they want it for the whole Dominion. If you are going to put a fair interpretation on what they say, that is what they apparently intend to convey, even though some of their advocates may appear sectional. But so far as government ownership of our railways is concerned, so long as we, the tax-payers, have to vote the money to carry on these railways, then it is all very well for Sir Henry Thornton or any other person high or low in the social or political scale to say there shall be no political interference. I am thoroughly in accord with the dictum that no member of parliament or of the government should have the right to interfere in the ordinary management of the system; but so long as you have to come to parliament to obtain the funds to carry on these National Railways, the matter is of urgent public interest, and the people's representatives in parliament have the right to discuss the management of the system. The government some time ago appointed Sir Henry Thornton president of the Board of Directors of the Canadian National Railways. Of Sir Henry I know but little. He undoubtedly is the best man that the government in their wisdom could secure. However, as the humble representative of the people in the county of Hants, I have one piece of advice to offer that gentlelman, namely, that instead of going about the country attending banquets and repeating "Politicians, hands off!" he should remember the old biblical injunction: Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. Sir Henry Thornton is confronted with a great problem. He is endeavouring to make the Canadian National Railways successful. In the course of his administration he will find that he cannot run a railway system here under the same conditions as obtain in England. Our winter climate is altogether different, the railway system is incomparably more extensive, and the conditions generally vary throughout the whole Dominion. So I have one other piece of advice to give Sir Henry Thornton that I trust will help him to make our National Railways successful, namely, that he follow another biblical injunction: Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
Our people are going to be called upon to pay for the upkeep of these railways, and therefore they should be administered in the interests of Canadian ports. I claim, Sir, that it is the bounden duty of Sir Henry Thornton and of the present government to see that freight rates are so regulated that shippers shipping by way of the great ports of Halifax and St. John be given a preference. You may say that I am sectional when I advocate that, but I claim that our public moneys should be expended towards the development of the Dominion-the upbuilding of our ports. If the operation of our government owned railways results in deficit after deficit, then in the name of every thing that is fair, the money which we have to provide to make good these deficits should go towards the improvement of Canadian ports and so give employment to our people.
We have been told by certain hon. members that we should practise economy. My hon. colleague from Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) yesterday afternoon referred to what might be termed the difference between true and false economy. True economy is the expenditure of money, as I understood him, whether it adds to the national debt or not, so long as that expenditure provides increased facilities for trade, and so stimulates and makes that trade easier. False economy is the locking up of our money in a miser's bag, so to speak. Now, we in the Maritime provinces need full and adequate facilities in
The Address-Mr. Martell

Halifax and St. John for carrying on all sorts of export trade. True, nature has endowed us with excellent harbours, but to-day there is need in Halifax for better terminal facilities, for grain elevators, for abattoirs, for cold storage plants to take care of fruit and other products of the farm. To-day the farmers of the Annapolis valley have apples which they cannot dispose of except at prices which practically bring them no return whatsoever. Cold storage plants in Halifax would enable these growers to store their fruit and place it on the market at prices that would bring them a fair return for their labour. In that regard I want to tell my hon. friends from western Canada that they are not the only people hit by the present conditions obtaining in this country. We hear a great deal about, not the unproductive farms, but the production of the farms of the West not yielding a great profit to the western farmers. We undoubtedly have the same conditions in eastern Canada; but you do not find the farmers of Annapolis, King's and Hants coming to the government and saying: "It is true that there has been dire distress as regards trade in this country; things are not prosperous, but we want the government to be our fairy god-father and to pay us for all these things." That seems to be the attitude of hon. gentlemen from western Canada.


Mr. FORKE:: I do not think so.


Lewis Herbert Martell: They come here and they want everything. In other words, they say: "We want the cash; let the people of the East pay the piper." I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bancroft) upon his very' excellent address, because he comes from my own county of Hants. But in the course of his remarks he took occasion to disagree with my hon. friend from Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll). He said that the farmers of western Canada were not prosperous. No person in this House is saying that the farmer of western Canada is prosperous to-day. What the hon. member for Cape Breton South said yesterday was that the farmer of western Canada was as prosperous as any other person in the Dominion of Canada. Will my hon. friend tell me that the farmers of Saskatchewan are all, as the hon. member for Victoria, Alta. (Mr. Lucas) said yesterday, willing and anxious to get out of the country, when last year over
2,000	of them were able to pay income taxes? What about the people in Manitoba who were able to pay income taxes? If the farmer of western Canada comes here with a fair demand, asking for increased facilities for trade,
I Mr. Martell.]
and if he meets us in the same spirit as the farmer of eastern Canada is prepared to meet this parliament, he will get what is coming to him from this government in a fair and equitable manner.
It is all very well to talk about the tariff. An hon. member who spoke yesterday quoted from Holland in a very elaborate and eloquent speech, and he almost insinuated that the men of the old parties were political crooks. Undoubtedly, he made the words of Holland his own-"Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy." Can my hon. friend point to any member of this government or any member of the late government who was purchased by the spoils of office? Surely, the time has come in this country when men of all political parties shall be given credit for some measure of political honesty and shall not be called rogues and purloiners because they do not happen to agree with the particular member who is giving utterance to his sentiments.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Lewis Herbert Martell: My hon. friend calls " order ". Go ahead and call the order if you wish. We hear constantly in this House attacks made upon men who have become prominent in the industrial life in this country. Yesterday afternoon, one of the speakers did not hesitate to make a few little insinuations about the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin). I am sure that if my hon. friend were sincere, if you could look into the innermost recesses of his heart, you would find he was not so much against the Minister of Justice as he was envious of men who, through their greater ability, secured and occupied greater positions in life than he. I want to tell my hon. friend who made that address yesterday that the present Minister of Justice was for many years leader of the people of the province of Quebec; and if my hon. friend wants to know the opinion of people outside of Quebec, he can come down to the old blue-nose province of Nova Scotia, and he will find there what our opinion is of the Minister of Justice. In the 1921 election, when it was said that the present Minister of Justice was coming back into politics, that statement aided every man in every constituency in Nova Scotia in securing his seat in the present parliament. That is the opinion which the people of Nova Scotia have of the present Minister of Justice.
Again, we were told yesterday that the Liberal party came into power on a platform of lower tariff. That is not the case. On every political platform that I had an opportunity of speaking in the province of

The Address-Mr. Martell
Nova Scotia, wherever I heard a colleague from Nova Scotia speak, and wherever I heard any of our leaders in Nova Scotia speak, no pronouncement whatever was made upon the tariff. What we said was this, that we had it on good authority that if the right hon. gentleman who now leads the government were returned to power, Mr. Fielding would be Minister of Finance, and that was all that the people of Nova Scotia wanted. That was our tariff policy - Mr. Fielding as Minister of Finance. I might go on and elaborate on this. It is true that there is a tariff wall in the Dominion of Canada to-day; but what have we to offer in its place? It is all that the people demand. It is said, that Solon, the Athenian law-giver, said that the laws which he gave to the Athenians were not the best laws, but they were the best laws the Athenians at that time could stand. So it is in connection with the present tariff. It is not the best tariff; but it is the best tariff that Canada, under present conditions, can stand.
I am not going to intrude further, to any great extent, upon your valuable time, but I wish to say simply this. As I have already stated, the time has come in this country when public men should get a fair measure of justice meted out to them. My hon. friends opposite stand in their places and say that the two old political parties of this country have gone into desuetude. I want to tell my hon. friends who sit opposite that the grand old Liberal party of this country and the historic Conservative party will exist in the Dominion of Canada when there will be no Progressives occupying seats in this House.


Mr. HOEY:: Will the hon. member tell me if they are going to exist together or separately?


Lewis Herbert Martell: Whether they exist
separately or together, they will exist for the making of good government, government in the interest of all the people all the time, and not in the interest of any particular class or group.
I want to be local for one or two minutes and to call the attention of this House to conditions which exist in my constituency. The other day my hon. friend from Colchester (Mr. Putnam), in speaking had only one fault that I can remember, and that is that he arrogated to his constituency the historic place from which the expulsion of the Acadians took place. I would claim that my constituency is the most historic. There is in my constituency of Hants the town of Windsor and in that constituency also are great lumbering and gypsum industries and
farming interests. W'e are the fourth port in the province of Nova Scotia as regards shipping and to-day we are absolutely devoid of any method of getting our commodities to market. I am, therefore, going to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) to look well to the demands of Windsor for improved trade facilities.
Before I conclude, I want to refer for a moment or so to the subamendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw). I do not know whether that is the fruit of the brains of that hon. member or not. But it seems to me if I read the times aright, that there has been a sort of morganatic alliance between him and some other members in the House, not of the Progressive faith. I believe he has taken sweet counsel of some of the friends of my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) who leads the opposition. The amendment reminds one of the deception practised in the case of Jacob and Esau in the days of old: the hand was the hand of Esau, but the voice was the voice of Jacob. There is no reason to-day why there should be any pessimism in this country. True, there is a cry of unemployment all through the country. But, Sir, this notwithstanding, I do not think we have any reason whatsoever to be pessimistic. Canada is rich in her natural resources; she has diversified industries; and all we have to do is to be cheerful and have faith in our common country, looking forward - to the day of prosperity, for already we can see
The roseate hues of early dawn,
The brightness of the dayand Canada rightly taking her place as one of the foremost parts of the British Empire..
I was going to refer to some remarks made concerning Canada and the Near East situation, but I shall not say much on this point. I have only this to observe, that the people of my province are, I believe, absolutely in accord with the attitude taken by the government in the matter. I believe that the issues of war and peace in the Dominion of Canada should be determined entirely by this parliament. We do not want to drift away from the Old Land, but Canada does want to be mistress in her own house. It is for us to say what shall become of the moneys of the Canadian people, and what stand Canada shall take in all matters, national or international. I can do no better, before I close, than to quote the words of Sir Allen Ayles-worth, who was appointed a short time ago to the Senate:
The Address-Mr. Kellner

We do not ask for independence or closer legislative union, but the right to work out our own destiny, with Canada taking a leading part in that galaxy of nations that will forever surround the British throne.
It is not by lip loyalty that we shall retain our attachment to the Old Land. We must show ourselves capable of shoulder-4 p.m. ing the responsibility which devolves from that independence which we have. For
Whilst the language, whilst the arts That mould a nation's soul Still cling around our hearts,
And between, let oceans roll
Our joint communion, breaking with the sun.
But still from either beach,
The voice of blood shall reach More audible than speech,
We are one.


Mr. D. F. KELLNER (East Edmonton):: As a representative of one of the constituencies which were honoured with a visit from Their Excellencies last summer, I am glad to know that our poor efforts at hospitality were appreciated. Before I say anything further, Mr. Speaker, I would tender a word of commendation to the mover of the Address (Mr. Putnam). Unfortunately, I cannot do the same so far as the seconder is concerned, foi I do not understand his language. I was just a little bit surprised at the tenor of the address of the 'hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell). That hon. member devoted him' self particularly to a criticism of the Progressives for their attitude towards the two old parties. While I listened the other afternoon to the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) in his very brilliant address, it occurred to me that the right hon. gentleman endeavoured to prove to the House that the present administration are incompetent, unreliable and unfit for office. I think you will agree that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) came right back. He claimed that in any instance where the present government had failed, it was because of some hopeless and impossible policy which had been wished upon them by the past administration; and he emphasized the fact that his government had done all that could reasonably have been hoped for, so far as anything they had personally undertaken was concerned. He also tells us that we are criticising the government.
Well, if the claim is advanced that both governments have been as good as could have been expected, it seems to me that no one will deny the truth of the statement that, in spite of this claim, Canada to-day is in a worse condition than it has ever been before. I believe that the rank and file of the people are finding it harder to get the necessaries of life than they have ever done at any 
previous stage in the country's history. However, I am not one of those who blame either the present or the past government for this. I think they both largely follow the same policy; their course is to a great extent dictated from the same sources, and the results would be much the same, regardless of what party might be in power. The present state of affairs, in my opinion, is due to the culmination of an impossible, a false, and an unfair fiscal policy; and I sometimes think that we take rather a short-sighted view of the situation when we go back only to the years of the war to get an angle from which to draw our conclusions regarding present conditions.
In order to understand the present situation correctly, we should go back over a period of about forty years to what might be termed the inauguration of the industrial epoch. At that time, practically throughout the English speaking world, a new method of business was being introduced. New machines were invented, expert mechanics were contriving devices for expediting commerce, railroads and transportation companies were extending their activities, agriculture took on a new impetus, with improved machinery to replace the old and worn out systems of production. The result was an increase in production in many ways. At the same time there sprang into being a large number of financial institutions to finance these increased operations. Now, I believe that these financial institutions had a dual purpose to perform. It was necessary for them to organize and build up their own business, and it was necessary for them also at least to look after the credit standing of those to whom they were lending money. The result was that early in the game, if one may so refer to this development, it was realized that if competition went on to its logical conclusion many of these financial institutions would be ruined. They therefore encouraged the system of fixing prices in order to eliminate competition; and to-day, in consequence of this price fixing, we have a spread between the cost of manufactured goods and their selling price which is perhaps greater than it has ever been before in the history of the world.
No doubt this is a topic that has been largely dwelt upon by previous speakers, so I will not do more than cite one instance in this connection. Recently in the city of Edmonton a farmer brought four horses to market, and there was no doubt that they were good horses, the kind which the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) tells us ought to fetch good prices. The auctioneer brought out the first two, and

The Address-Mr. Kellner
under the hammer they went for $20. He went back and got the other two and they brought $15; or, in other words, the four, horses, good animals, were sold for $35. The next article put up was a second-hand wagon which had been in use for five or six years. When the auctioneer called for bids the first offer was $25, which was increased by bids of $5 until the bidding stopped at $40. Then the auctioneer made a little speech, to this effect. He said:	"Gentlemen, what
would a wagon cost you if you bought it new to-day? Put a little paint on this wagon and it will be as good as new." The bidding was resumed and the wagon finally brought $90. Now, here were four good horses which were sold for $35, while an old second hand wagon could fetch $90. I do not think it is necessary to dwell on the point further. However, I would ask the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell) who stated a few moments ago that there were a large number of unsaleable apples in his constituency, why they do not bring them to Ottawa and sell them, where they are retailing at five cents apiece.
Following out the theory of industrial expansion which this country has experienced, I would point out that by 1912 a certain amount of distress in our business operations had become apparent. In 1913 and the early part of 1914 the conditions were rapidly becoming worse, and by the time the war broke out we had practically the same conditions in Canada that we have to-day. Of course, since that time we have added materially to our public debt, and in that respect the condition has become a little more acute. I notice that if you speak about this matter to a banker in western Canada he will say it is the manufacturer who is to blame-that they have kept their prices so high that the people are unable to buy their goods; and if you speak to a manufacturer he will say that the bankers and loan companies are to blame because they lent money at exorbitant rates of interest which it required all the production of the country to pay. That is another case of " passing the buck," somewhat the same as the ex-government and the present government do in evading responsibility. I believe that government has one function to perform, that is, seeing that there is fair play as between the different classes of the people. If they are going to extend advantages to any it should be to the weak, to those who are unable to look after themselves- these should receive first consideration. That, however, has not been the case in the past. Any patronage that has gone out has invariably gone out to the big concerns, to
those who are well able to look after themselves.
Speaking yesterday afternoon, the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll), referring to conditions in the West, produced a telegram from the East Edmonton U.F.A. an organization with which I have the honour to be connected, that had inspired a letter which he seemed to question the truth of. I take it that he was trying to argue that the West had had a very big crop last year. I have here a report from the Alberta government covering the crop averages in that province. It states that in respect of spring wheat there was an average crop of 11.40 bushels to the acre; of winter wheat, 11.60 bushels; of oats, 21.50 bushels; of barley, 14.90 bushels; of rye, 10.30 bushels.
With regard to the matter of a suggested immigration policy, I would like to quote what the present provincial government is sending out in regard to the conference recently held in this city respecting immigration. The statement says:
Hon. It. G. Reid, Minister of Health and Municipal Affairs, returned last week from Ottawa where he attended the conference of Dominion and provincial cabinet ministers on the problem of immigration. Mr. Reid made it plain to the conference that Alberta was not in a position to encourage any wholesale immigration at the present time but was prepared to absorb new settlers with sufficient capital to establish themselves. He also pointed out that the province was seeking irrigation farmers particularly for the new irrigation districts being opened up in the south.
If the reports we get about Canada being in the most favourable position of any country in the world are true, what is the sense of our going to other countries and trying to get farmers to come in here who have money? I do not see that there is any country you can go to with much hope of getting them. Every country has unoccupied farm lands. Most assuredly the United States has them; every country in Europe has them. There is no doubt that any persons in these countries who wanted to farm could find a good opportunity to do so in their own home land, and if we transplant them to Canada there is little prospect of their remaining here very long. Probably seventy-five per cent of the people who live in our urban centres to-day have had experience in farming, and the reason they are not on the farms to-day is because they tried it and found it did not pay, so they moved off.
Canada is a young man's country, a strong man's country. We cannot afford to take any class of people who may wish to come here. The only men who can hope to make good in our country are men who are physically robust and strong.
The Address-Mr. Duff

I was a little amused the other afternoon when the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) suggested that the redistribution which is to take place this session should follow the lines of the redistribution policy of 1912. I think when he made that request he strayed a considerable distance from the paths of intelligence. In 1912 it was unquestionably the policy to make as many safe Conservative seats as possible, and this time I do not doubt, it will be the policy to make as many safe Liberal seats as possible. Whether or not this government is responsive to the needs of the country I do not know, but I do know that the opinion is held that a small group control and largely dominate the business of the country. That is a dangerous tendency. The people are losing heart; they are becoming dissatisfied, and unless confidence can be restored and the spirits of the people brought up to a higher level, the position will become even more dangerous. That was virtualv admitted yesterday when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) said that our debt would probably not be paid during the lifetime of the present parliament. That is practically the condition that the individual finds himself in today, except that he is a little worse off, because he has not the taxing power of the country in his own hands. If his business requires new money, he invariably finds that he cannot get it, whereas the government can levy additional taxes to meet the country's requirements. It is the duty of the government, Sir, to see that there is fair play as between the different classes that comprise the people of Canada, a duty which I am afraid in the past has not been faithfully carried out.


Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and after listening to the number of excellent addresses which have been made on the motion of the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Putnam), I feel that it is not necessary for me to take up the time of the House at any considerable length. However, I feel it my duty to refer for a few moments to certain matters contained in His Excellency's Speech, as well as to try and answer some of the criticisms made by certain members who have preceded me.
I presume I am in order with the other members of this House in offering, as is usual, my congratulations to the mover of the Address (Mr. Putnam) and the seconder (Mr. Rheaume). We in Nova Scotia, as was so ably said by the hon. member for Hants (Mr. 
Martel)) are very proud of the honour the government has done us in selecting one of our number to move the Address. We are proud, Sir, of the hon. member for Colchester, and proud also that he comes from one of the old historic counties of the province of Nova Scotia.
Since the opening of this parliament reference has been made to the deaths of certain members which have taken place since last session. Whilst we all lament the four members who have passed away, I wish particularly to refer for a moment to one who for the last four or five years was a very dear personal friend of mine. It is said that if you sleep with a man you come to know him, and I had the honour and the pleasure during an eight weeks' trip to the West in the year 1920 of coming in close contact with one of the hon. members of this House who passed away during the recess. I feel it my duty at. this moment to express my deep sorrow that a personal friend of mine in the person of the Hon. Mr. Kennedy, the late Minister of Railways, is with us no more.
His Excellency in his Speech has given us some very valuable information. The second paragraph says:
It is gratifying to note that in a period of worldwide trade depression following the Great War, Canada has made substantial progress towards recovery.
It is quite true, of course, that conditions in Canada are not as bad as they were a year ago; but still every business man in this country realizes that we are not yet out of the woods by a long way, and it is desirable that there be not only public economy, but private economy by every man, woman and child in Canada if we are ever going to get back on a proper business basis. While conditions are not just exactly what they should be, yet there is hope for this great country. We have great natural resources, and if our people apply themselves and work, not merely six or eight hours a day, but from daylight till dark or as long as there is work to be done, I believe that we shall pull Canada out of the condition in which she finds herself today.
The government seems to be coming in for a great deal of blame for the present conditions. I cannot agree with this statement. It is to be remembered that this government only took office a year ago, and it was faced with certain conditions at that time. I do not blame the conditions altogether upon the late government, but this government was faced with certain conditions, and it is certainly going to take a year or two-in fact, it will take, not decades, but centuries to overcome

The Address-Mr. Duff
certain things which have taken place in the last few years.
The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw) has moved an amendment to the amendment, in which he deprecated the fact that the public debt had increased by $45,000,000 this year. Well, Sir, there is good reason why the public debt should have increased that much, and one reason is what took place, not last year, but several years ago. Whilst the war is responsible for a great deal of the increase in the public debt, my opinion is that most of our troubles are due to what was known as "Union government' 'in this country. If instead of having a Union government in 1917, we had had either a Conservative or a Liberal, we should not find ourselves half as badly off as we are at the present time.
I notice that the hon. member for Calgary West, in speaking of the public debt, offered no solution of our difficulties. He talked, of course, about economizing, and how fine a thing it would be to reduce the public debt, but he did not make any concrete suggestions how it could be done. The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey), who also moved an amendment, talked about the economic conditions in this country and endeavoured to tell us that those conditions should be bettered. It is all very well to get up and criticize, but unless your criticism is constructive it is an absolute waste of time to get up on your feet before an intelligent assembly of this kind and make statements which you are unable to back up.
Let us look into this question of the public debt for a moment, and see what can be done with regard to expenditure in this country. I hold in my hands the Estimates for the year ending March 31, 1923. These Estimates were passed last year by the members of this parliament, and totalled $466,983,000. If we look at the Estimates for a moment we shall see why the hon. member for Calgary West and the hon. member for Springfield did not show us where this government and this parliament could save money for the taxpayers. What do we find? The very first item is "Interest on public debt, $140,000,000." Now it is impossible for us to get around that expenditure. The interest on the public debt has to be paid until such a time as Canada is capable of paying off all or part of it. This charge, of course, was largely brought about through the great expenditure during the war years. It was also brought about by other causes. Some of the amounts which have been spent were not in my opinion absolutely
necessary, but, of course, there were certain amounts that had to be expended, and some of them very large amounts.
I spoke a moment ago of the cost of the war. Nobody objects to any legitimate expenditure in that connection, but during the past few years the amounts which have gone to make up our public debt have been expended all over this country. For instance, in the city of Halifax, which is the greatest port in Canada, a large amount of money was spent some few years ago. Some $20,000,000 was expended on the port of Halifax, and I say that that amount of money was wasted. It was an unnecessary expenditure. It should not have been expended where it was, because the eastern terminals where they at present exist are really of no benefit to the port of Halifax or to the shipping which comes there. The whole city was cut in two. I say that instead of spending $20,000,000 upon that work, an expenditure of $2,000,000 in another part of the city would give us far better terminals.
Take the city of St. John, where also a large amount of money was spent in development work. Whether the expenditure was wise or not is a moot question. Some people contend that in order to develop the port of St. John it was necessary that that large amount of money should be spent; but I have heard criticisms, especially with regard to the dry-doo.k in Courtenay Bay. I have heard it said that the money spent there was absolutely wasted because a ship cannot be hauled out to be cleaned or placed in dry dock unless you have a high tide in the Bay of Fundy, and as those who read the Nautical Almanac know, the tide is some 35 feet.
There were other great expenditures. This government and the late government have voted large sums of money to the Montreal Harbour Commissioners, for instance. I think everybody will agree that that expenditure has been for the development of the port. Perhaps more money has been voted than was absolutely necessary, but Montreal is a great port, and it seems to me if we are ever to develop the business of this country large sums of money must be spent where development work is necessary. So, when members of this House or people outside regret the increase in the public debt, they should bear in mind that no criticism should be offered to legitimate- expenditure.
Then we have been spending for the last few years large sums of money on harbour works in Quebec. Large amounts have also been expended on harbour improvements in
The Address-Mr. Duff

Toronto, and we are told, in criticism of this expenditure, that no inconsiderable sum voted for that purpose was spent last year in building boulevards and parks in that city. If that statement is correct the money spent for such a purpose was an unwise expenditure. On the other hand, any expenditure for properly building up the port of Toronto I should say was a wise expenditure for which neither the present government nor their predecessors should be criticized.
Turning our attention to the Pacific we find that a large sum of money has been spent in Vancouver during the past few years. I had the pleasure of visiting that city two years ago, and of visiting it again this year, and I want to say that it is one of the principal cities in Canada. It is a city that every Canadian should be proud of, and not simply the people who live in its immediate vicinity. The port of Vancouver in my opinion is, in the near future, going to equal the city of Montreal-no, I should not say that, but it will go a great length in that direction; and I admit that any moneys spent by this government, or any other government, for the development of that port is in the best interests of Canada. I heard my hon. friend from Skeena (Mr. Stork) speak of Prince Rupert and he extolled that port very highly. The port is certainly an excellent one, and I am told is 600 miles nearer the Orient than Vancouver. In the port of Prince Rupert there- is one of the best drydocks in the world, and a drydock which is not being used either by the general shipping of Canada, or by the government vessels when they need to be hauled out and repaired.
I find that in the city of Victoria a sum of four or five million dollars is to be spent on a drydock. Now, I have nothing to say against that city, and I congratulate the hon. member who represents it upon getting such a large sum of money voted; but I am doubtful, Sir, of the wisdom of such a vote in view of the splendid dock to be found at Prince Rupert. I doubt whether the late administration, or the present government is justified in expending such a large amount of money for such a purpose in the city of Victoria in view of existing accommodation, the huge burden of public debt and the tremendous amount of money we have to pay in the form of interest and for other purposes.
For example during the war there was expended for what was termed naval expenditure and which was almost entirely unnecessary the sum of $30,000,000. This amount was practically wasted; no benefits whatever were derived from the expenditure. Before I
[Mr. Duff).
came to Ottawa I went through the dockyard in the city of Halifax. Some of the citizens of Halifax called my attention to the great quantity of stores that was to be found in that dockyard. In order to convince myself of the truthfulness of the statements of these gentlemen I went down and inspected the dockyard and I now make this statement: Whoever are responsible for the great quantity of stores in that dockyard- whether it is the officials of the Naval department under the present government or under the last government-are not fit to continue to hold any office of public trust in this country. Would you believe me, Sir, when I tell you that there is almost enough rope in store in the dockyard of Halifax to reach practically all round the world, and that, too, notwithstanding the fact that within half a mile of the dockyard, in the city of Dartmouth, rope works exist where supplies could be purchased whenever needed, and at very short notice. Well, some official, at the instance of some government, deliberately purchased from some friends sufficient rope to fit out the entire British navy, the vessels of the Canadian government merchant marine and all the shipping that will come to Halifax for the next twenty-five years. Worse than that, there is enough wire rope in that dockyard to rig practically every ship in Canada. Furthermore there are 800 suits of oilclothes hanging up in an upper attic. These are practically burnt and will not be fit for use. Permit me to mention that the dockyard stores contain these among other items-7 tons of pepper; 1,300 dozen teaspoons; 1,500 dozen tablespoons; also knives, forks, teapots, and soup tureens-everything you can think of. I went into one branch and inquired " What is in those boxes?" I received the reply " They contain black ink I inquired " How much is there?" They said " One hundred and forty boxes of ink, twelve quarts each." Now here every day we have to ask a messenger to go and get us a bottle of ink, and yet in the Halifax dockyard there is enough ink to keep the members of parliament' supplied for the next five years. This affords some idea of the wasteful expenditure which has gone on. It is about time the present government set to work and sold at auction or otherwise the great quantity of stores in the Halifax dockyard.
* There is another item, and a very big one which goes to make up our public debt on which such a large sum of interest is payable at the present time, and that is the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, which cost the tax payers of this country some $80,000,000. This money should never
ill

The Address-Mr. Duff
have been spent, and the taxpayers of Canada should never have been called upon to bear such a heavy burden. If the ex-Mmister of Marine and Fisheries had taken the advice of certain members of this House he would have been able to sell these vessels at a fair price, or practically at cost. But instead of doing that he has kept the vessels in operation for several years with the result that year after year they involve a loss of large sums of money. Last year the loss was about $9,000,000; this year I am told the loss will amount to $10,000,000, and that is where the money is going, to increase the public debt. In the Speech from the Throne it was announced that these ships had been passed over to Sir Henry Thornton and his board of directors. I say that it is a mistake for the government to put these ships under the control of the Railway department or under the control of the board of directors of the Canadian National railways. In my opinion they should have remained under the manage-of the Minister of Marine, and I would advise the government at the earliest possible moment to cause them to revert to his control. The minister should then sell them as quickly as possible so that the people of the country will not have to pay any further deficits on the service.
There are other expenditures, and to some I would like to direct the attention of the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) and see if he objects to them. For example we passed an appropriation of $8,000,000 last year for agriculture. I am sure my hon. friend will not object to that one, he will not saj* that .that appropriation was not necessary. For my part I certainly think it was necessary and very likely was expended to good advantage.


Mr. GOULD:: It was too small.


William Duff: The hon. member for Assini-boia, says it was too small. That is the selfish westerner speaking.
We have a vote of $2,000,000 for immigration and colonization, and in the Speech from the Throne there is a reference to the desirability of getting immigrants for Canada. With that I agree, but I also want to sound a, note of warning to the government. While it is desirable to secure immigrants, and while it. is true that, in view of the burden of our public debt and the existing taxation, we must increase the population of this country, yet it seemes to me that we ought to endeavour as far as possible, to retain our present population as well as attract new arrivals. During the last year, and it is not the fault of the present government, a great many
people have left this country. It may surprise you to know that some of the very best blood in the province from which I come have gone to the United States-this exodus consisting not of old men and women, but of young men and young girls from 18 to 25 years of age. These are the people we should try and keep in Canada; and yet because of certain conditions which now exist, and for which I say the present government is not responsible these young men and women are forced to go to the United States. As far as the province of Nova Scotia is concerned I do not believe we have had a square deal since confederation. One reason why we cannot get the same measure of justice meted out to us as the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, in particular, enjoy is this-on account of our distance from these great provinces we are practically compelled to buy from Ontario and Quebec but we are unable to sell our products to them. Certain people talk about home markets, but so far as the province of Nova Scotia is concerned, we have no home markets except within our three Maritime provinces. Our destiny is on the sea and to the south, and unless we get fair terms from the great republic so we can sell our products there, and unless we can also sell our products in the West Indies and abroad, there is not very much hope for Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.
Some of my hon. friends on the other side were talking about our railway problems and high freight rates. Well, if anybody in this country has reason to complain about, our freight rates it seems to me it is the people of the Maritime provinces. In view of what happened last year-I refer to the generous treatment meted out to the western provinces by the Maritime provinces-I think our western friends should endeavour to help us in the Maritimes as much as possible. I happened, Sir, to be a member of the special committee on the Crowsnest pass agreement, and I had the honour, as the representative of the Maritime provinces on that committee, to move the adoption of a report in committee which was to bring some relief to the western provinces. This report was filed in parliament on the 24th June, 1922. I think the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) said that by that agreement the people of the West saved $30,000,000. Well, if that be so, we in the East who got no redress in the matter of freight rates had to pay our proportion of that saving, because if no reduction had been made in freight rates, and if the Canadian Government Railways had

The Address-Mr. Duff
received, say, half of that 830,000,000, there would have been $15,000,000 less increase of the national debt. Therefore I say the people of the Maritime provinces had to pay their proportion of that amount.
I want to read to the House one of the clauses of that report. It will be found on page 496 of the Journals of the House of Commons for 1922. Here it is:
Representatives of the Maritime provinces urged that their situation was one of special character, because of the conditions under which the Intercolonial Railway has been constructed as a result of the Confederation agreement. They contended that there was an implied obligation necessarily attaching to these terms which guaranteed to them special consideration in regard to railway freight rates, on account of their distance from the central and Western provinces. It was claimed that the increases in rates of the Intercolonial Railway since 1916 were in excess of rates allowed by the Board of Railway Commissioners on many of their products, which excessive rates greatly interfered with interprovincial trade, and are contrary to the obligation accepted by the Government of Canada at Confederation. The Government was, therefore, asked to take cognizance of the situation and endeavour to arrange such reductions of rates as will, having regard to the actual cost of operation of these railways, remove as far as possible the difficulties complained of, and that the Board of Railway Commissioners should, for the same reasons, and in so far as their jurisdiction extends, restore the differential rate formerly applicable to traffic to and from the Maritime provinces, and we recommend that the Minister of Railways and Board of Management take steps to meet the situation in these provinces by a substantial reduction in rates.
Now, while this part of the report was adopted by the House, practically nothing was done by the Railway Commission to give redress to the Maritime provinces, with the result that we in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick are at the present time suffering by reason of the high freight rates which we have to pay, and as long as these high freight rates exist it is impossible for the people there to do very much business with the central and western provinces. It is true that a new board of directors of our National Railways has been appointed and are at work, and I sincerely hope that before they get very far in their deliberations they will take into consideration the fact that the Maritime provinces have certain rights under confederation, and if they expect the people there to be prosperous and to be able to pay either their share of the interest on the national debt or of the public expenditure, they will have to put them in a position where they can do more business with the central and western provinces.
But, as I said a moment ago, in my opinion our destiny is not with these provinces. If we are going to get increased business we have to get it either in the United States or in
rMr. Duff].
other foreign countries. While the western farmer has been suffering on account of low prices for his products, the same thing applies to the farmer and every other producer in practically all the other provinces, and applies perhaps to a far larger extent to those in the Maritime provinces. Last year United States congress passed what was known as the Fordney tariff bill, increasing the tariff on goods which we sell to that great country, and that increase has been a great handicap to the farmers, the lumbermen and the fishermen of the three provinces of the Maritimes. Candidly, I do not know what is going to happen. Some people talk of retaliation, of putting up a tariff wall against goods from the United States. I am opposed to that course because I cannot see the wisdom of it. My hon. friends on the other side want lower tariffs. I am in hearty sympathy with them. I think that if it were practical I would go a great deal further than they are prepared to go, because from a business standpoint, if conditions in these countries were normal, I cannot see why there should be any tariff between the state of Maine and the province of New Brunswick any more than there is between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. But unfortunately there are certain conditions which we have to face. This government has been left a legacy, if I may so term it, by other governments, and they have to carry on and raise sufficient moneys to meet our national expenditure, and therefore it is impossible at the present time to adopt free trade or substantially reduce the tariff. Consequently I do not think my friends from the West should be in *such a hurry. They should give the government a chance, and I feel confident that if they have patience everything will work out all right. As I said before, if it were possible I would have no tariff barriers at all. But I think it is useless for any hon. member to rise in his place and endeavour to convince us that at the present time we can either very much lower our tariff or abolish it altogether. The Fordney bill, as I said, wyas very injurious to the people of Nova Scotia. For instance, the business in which I am mostly interested, fish, is hard hit, a duty of $1.60 per hundred pounds having been imposed on salt dry fish, and on salt fish, herring, mackerel, and so on, a prohibitive duty of two cents a pound. The result is that anybody who ships these goods to the United States receives that much less for them, because the price governing fish is not fixed in the same way as the price on grain or on manufactured products, that is, the price of fish is fixed in the foreign market,

The Address-Mr. Duff
and consequently the shipper has to pay the duty.
Unless this government does something to make an agreement with the United States whereby the tariff on fish is reduced or abolished, I regret to say that the great fisheries of Nova Scotia will soon be a thing of the past. In my own county to-day we have something like 150,000 quintals of fish unsold, representing under normal conditions about a million and a half dollars. It is no wonder that all over Nova Scotia and the other two Maritime provinces the fishermen are leaving for the United States, because they find that under the Fordney tariff they cannot make a living from the avocation they have followed in the past. Therefore, while I congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) on concluding commercial treaties with France and Italy, it seems to me that after the session is over one of the first things to engage the attention of the government should be the making of an agreement with the United States whereby the tariff on some of the commodities we export to that country will be reduced to the point that will enable us to recover our trade with that country.
I was speaking to the House, and particularly to the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) with regard to our national expenditures, and was asking him if he objected to any items which were contained in this great list totalling $466,000,000. One large item is $33,000,000 for pensions. I am sure that neither the hon. member for Springfield nor any other hon. member is going to object to that expenditure so long as the money is properly spent, and therefore when he or any other hon. member urges the necessity of economizing I am confident they do not want to economize on this item. There is an item, however, which I am now going to express myself freely upon. The next item I notice which we voted last year was for Militia and Defence, $10,000,000. Personally, I am with the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) with regard to a great reduction in that item. I believe there is no necessity to spend $10,000,000 in this country on Militia and Defence. As long as we have a skeleton organization which might cost anywhere from $2,000,000 to $5,000,000, I think Canada is doing her share. I noticed in the speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) the other day-and I should really congratulate him upon that speech, because it was a very mild and good one-he mentioned the fact
that Canada had certain duties in connection with the defence of the country. That is quite true, and Canada, I think, is 'willing at any time to do what is necessary; but in view of the large public debt, in view of the interest and other expenditures that we have, we should, for the next few years at least, economize as regards expenditure in connection with Militia and Defence.
Last year, we voted some $90,000,000 for Railways and Canals; and as I said a moment ago, if this House had given relief to the agriculturists of the West, we would not have to raise so much money in other ways to pay the expenses of Railways and Canals. The next item is Dominion Lands and Parks, $4,936,000. This is an item where, in my opinion, this government could economize. In view of present business conditions in this country, I cannot see why almost $5,000,000 should be spent on Dominion Lands and Parks. Another item is Soldier Land Settlement, $12,000,000. I am sure neither the hon. member for Springfield nor anybody else will object to that amount of money being spent, if it is spent properly in the interest of the returned soldier. Then there is Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. Nobody, I am sure, will object to that item. Then, under the heading of Miscellaneous, we have the large sum of $14,000,000. I am going to be frank with the government, frank with myself and frank with the House. In my opinion, under that heading, this country can save some money.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


William Duff: My hon. friend says, "hear, hear." I hope he will not ask for several million dollars to be expended in the western provinces for something which we cannot afford. Before I pass from the amount which was voted last year for Railways and Canals, I notice an item of $4,360,000 lent to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited. I do not think the present government was responsible, because we were compelled to vote that money last year, and I do not wish to criticize very much the former government. But we have arrived at a time and a condition when, in my opinion, no more money should be voted by this House for the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. Instead of voting more money to be wasted and lost, this government should sell those ships at the earliest possible moment, pay any debts that have been contracted in connection with them, and place



The Address-Mr. Duff
the balance of the money towards the payment of the public debt.


Mr. NEILL:: Is the hon. member aware, or will he tell the House, that the Canadian Government Merchant Marine on the Pacific coast is a public benefit and a profitable one? It is only in the effete East that it has proved unprofitable.


William Duff: My hon. friend has stated that the Canadian Government Merchant Marine ships on the Pacific coast are beneficial and profitable. I do not know if they are profitable or not, but I doubt that very much. I cannot understand why they should be beneficial, when millions of tons of shipping are lying idle in almost every principal port in the world, ships that would be very glad to carry the cargoes which the Canadian Government Merchant Marine are carrying from Vancouver and other Canadian ports.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: They would not be Canadian ships.


William Duff: They would be British.


Edward Joseph Garland: American.


William Duff: This government has no right to vote the people's money to pay the deficit of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine ships when there is tonnage to carry every dollar's worth of goods on either the Pacific or the Atlantic coast.
I want to refer for a moment to some of the items under Miscellaneous which amount to $14,000,000. This is a very large amount, and of course some of it is necessary. I am sure nobody will object to the item of $2,200,000 which it voted and spent to provide for the administration of the business profits war tax. Everybody realizes that a large amount of money is collected through this source, and it is necessary to have a large staff of officials to collect this amount. The only regret I have is that there are not more farmers in this country, especially in the West, who can pay a business profits tax and an income tax.
There are, however, several amounts on which I think we could save this year. First, there is a grant of $15,000 to the Canadian General Council of the Boy Scouts' Association. I believe under present conditions that money should not be voted and should be saved to the ratepayers of this country. There is a grant of $3,000 in aid of the Dominion Council of the Girl Guides. Of course, it L very nice for certain religious bodies in this country to get together the young ladies in their congregations and to put them through certain plysical training; but under present .
financial conditions in this country, these churches should arrange to pay the expenses of these organizations themselves and not come to this government for any grant.
Another item is Purchasing Commission, $72,000. I believe there is no necessity for paying $72,000 for a Purchasing Commission, when in the Public Works department, Marine and Fisheries department and every other department there is a purchasing agent. It seems to me that these purchasing agents should be able to purchase the goods that are required, and that this $72,000 could be saved to the taxpayers of this country. I feel sure the hon. member for Springfield will realize, on consideration, that when the government has to raise practically $500,000,000 and most of it can be spent economically in the best interests of this country, it is pretty hard for the government to retrench very much in the matter of expenditures.


Mr. LEADER:: Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question-and I am asking it in a friendly spirit-does he not think that the grant of $5,000 to the boat race off the coast of Nova Scotia might be done away with this year?


William Duff: I agree absolutely with the hon. gentleman, and since he has brought up this point, I might say that I consider the $5,000 voted last year for that purpose was the best expenditure that this government or any other government could make.


Harry Leader: You beat the other fellow.


William Duff: Yes, we beat the other fellow. But let me tell my hon. friend that this is not an ordinary yacht race; it is a fishermen's race. This race is run by fishing vessels; the boats are manned by actual fishermen, and it is a good thing for the country because it develops a spirit of rivalry. Last year no less than fifteen new fishing schooners were built because the owners and captains wanted to compete with the vessels which won the race in 1921. In spite of the depression in Nova Scotia to-day, in my constituency sixteen new fishing schooners are being built practically as a result of that fishermen's race.


Edward Joseph Garland: Are they
needed?


William Duff: I do not quite understand the hon. member's question.


Edward Joseph Garland: My question is in reference to my hon. friend's last remark. Are these fishing schooners being built for the purpose of racing only, or for fishing purposes?

The Address-Mr. Duff


William Duff: I am sorry my hon. friend does not read the newspapers. I have explained the matter in this House, and the newspapers contained many columns about it last year. These vessels are not racing vessels; they are fishing vessels. They, with their crews, leave the ports of Lunenburg, LaHave and Mahone in the month of March when my hon. friend and I are comfortably seated in the House of Commons. They go out and anchor off the Sable island banks where they fish for about a month.


Edward Joseph Garland: My hon. friend referred to the fact that the holding of this race caused an additional shipbuilding effort to the number of fifteen ships. Presumably it was because it was felt that the grant would stimulate interest in fishing. All I am asking is whether these ships were built purely because of the stimulus and the advertising which would result from the race, or whether they were built because they were actually needed.


William Duff: They are built for both purposes. The race gave a stimulus to young men to go and secure owners to put up money to build the new schooners. The result is that the fleet has been increased by fifteen or sixteen ships in the last year, and the same number this year. These vessels are not racing yachts; they are ships that are on the ocean from the 15th March until the middle of October or later. They fish on the Sable island banks, the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and elsewhere, where fishermen, to the number of about twenty on each vessel, spend the whole summer, returning with fish to the value of some $30,000 in each ship. Every vessel added to the fleet brings into the country yearly product valued at some $30,000, and I certainly think that a grant of $5,000 voted for the purpose of promoting this industry does just as much good as a similar grant voted for agriculture.


Mr. BROWN:: I want the hon. member to understand that the matter is one that has my sympathy. But he apparently does not see any inconsistency between his advocating this grant and the statement that fishermen are going to the United States. Does it not seem that we are building up at one end and allowing the industry to go down at the other? Does the hon. member not see any inconsistency there?


William Duff: I do not think there is. The people who are going to the United States are young men and women. The men who are going are not fishermen.
8i


John Livingstone Brown: You mentioned fishermen as well, I believe.


William Duff: There are a few from Cape Breton and the counties along the shore, but most of the men who have been fishing in these vessels of which I speak will remain at home. Now, because of the depression in the fishing industry, a number of fishing schooners of the type of that which won the race last year have been sold, as my hon. friend says, to gentlemen who are in a more profitable business and who hail from the United States. And the joke is that these vesels hail from Lunenburg, although they are owned and operated from the United States, because Americans cannot go into that particular business with ships of their own.
My hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) raised some question with regard to this grant of $5,000. Of course I am quite willing to take this criticism in the right spirit. But I would call his attention to some of the amounts that have been spent in agriculture. In my opinion the $5,000 voted for the schooner race was just as beneficial in the interests of this country as
5 p.m. some of the moneys voted for agriculture. We vote some $8,000,000 all told for agriculture.
For instance, for seed and fertilizer we grant $260,000, and for live stock $1,000,000. We on this side of the House do not complain about the votes to agriculture which the western provinces receive. I noticed somewhere the other day in looking over the estimates that a large amoimt was voted for seed grain as well. It seems to me that if this government and past governments can have voted large sums of money for seed grain and for other agricultural purposes, my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie should not complain if a certain amount is granted to the fisheries of the country; because, in my opinion, neither this government nor any other has done what it should have done to encourage our fisheries. I see that while in the Speech from the Throne His Excellency speaks about agricultural depression he makes no mention of the depression in either the fisheries or the lumber industry. I think that the sooner His Excellency is made aware of the conditions in the Maritime provinces and is shown the opportunity we have for development there, he will see the wisdom of including in the next Speech from the Throne some practical reference to fisheries and lumber.
One hon. member yesterday spoke about the Hudson Bay railway. Now, this is something on which we have spent a large amount
The Address-Mr. Duff

of money, and I understand that our western friends are asking that still greater sums be expended to construct this railway. In my opinion, and I have some knowledge of the matter, this undertaking should never have been started in the first place, and it would be a mistake for this government to spend one dollar on the Hudson Bay railway. It is regrettable, but still true, that every dollar spent by either this government or any previous government in endeavouring to build a harbour at either Port Nelson or Fort Churchill has been absolutely wasted. By reason of currents and the condition of the bottom of that large bay; the millions of dollars that have been spent in dredging since operations were first started have been practically wasted. I have some knowledge of this locality because I have been at the mouth of Hudson bay as far as Mugford and Nain, and it is impossible to get ships into the bay for any lengthy period. They may get in for four weeks out of the whole twelve months of the year, and no shipping man will send a vessel there unless he gets a higher freight rate, because he has to pay higher insurance. But what is the use of spending millions of dollars in building a railway to Hudson bay when it is impossible to keep the ports open on account of ice and the conditions that prevail at these places? I think it is about time that the people of the West, while we are all in sympathy with them, realized the futility of asking the government to spend money for the purpose "of building the Hudson Bay railway when it can never be a success. Even if the railway were built, very little shipping would come to these ports.
I think I have said about as much as is necessary in regard to this matter. I feel that if this government is given a chance to prove its worth it will satisfy the taxpayers of the country that it is endeavouring to do its best under very trying circumstances. The government has been in power only a year, and it is impossible for any government to do very much in that time. We should bear in mind that when the Liberal party was in power from 1896 to 1911 this country was very prosperous. And I would remind my friends from the western provinces that any relief in the matter of taxation that has been given by the governments of this country has been given by the Liberal party when in office. That party went down to defeat in 1911 in an effort to provide some relief not only to western agriculturists but to all the people of Canada, when the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the late	Mr. Paterson tried to
get	through a reciprocity agreement.

I think that we should at the earliest moment try to negotiate with the United States another treaty of that kind. I am not scared of the bogey of one hundred millions swallowing nine millions. Now, the people of the Maritime provinces are all good Canadians who believe in confederation, but unless some relief is given them, I fear to contemplate the future. Thousands of people have left those provinces during the last year, and if something is not done to retain the present population the Maritime provinces will lose thousands this year and next year as well. I do think that our western friends should unite with the members from the East in an endeavour to find some solution for the problem of the Maritime provinces. If that solution lies in a lower tariff and it can be provided without any injury to any of the rest of the people I. am with the western members. But I do not think that this is the right time to move an amendment such as has been submitted by the hon. membe-fo*- Springfield (Mr. Hoey). The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) in his speech the other day said that this tariff was 2| per cent higher than it was when the government of which he was leader went out of power. I always take with a grain of salt anything the right hon. gentleman says, and I shall not dispute his words now; I could not, perhaps, hold my end of it in a controversy with him.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Duff: I beg pardon? I would try it, of course, if necessary. I want to read an extract from an editorial published in a Tory newspaper. The right hon. leader of the Opposition has said that the present tariff is higher than it was when the Union government, or the National Liberal and Conservative government, was in power. Nobody has any doubt about the politics of the Mail and Empire, a journal which is published in Toronto, the great home of Toryism, and is regarded generally as a loyal Tory newspaper. In an editorial which devotes a good deal of attention to the hon. leader of the Progressive party, the Mail and Empire says, referring to the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke):
Does he regard the present tariff of Canada as a highly protective one, considering the fact that it is the lowest tariff Canada has had in a generation?
These are the words of the Toronto Mail and Empire, yet the right hon. leader of the Opposition said a few days ago, and I think he repeated it yesterday, that the present tariff was higher by 2 A- per cent than it was when his government went out of power. I leave the matter to the right hon. leader of the

The Address-Mr. Lewis
Opposition and the editor of the Mail and Empire, but everybody knows-it was stated yesterday by the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding)-that the tariff is lower than it was before; that reductions were made on a great many articles. I feel that if this government is given a fair chance it will reduce the tariff, even at this session, wherever possible.


Mr. IRVINE:: If this is not a proper time to move the amendment, when would the proper time be?


William Duff: Well, I am only a backbencher; I am not a parliamentarian of many years' standing, any more than my hon. friend is. But my idea is that the proper time to bring down the resolution moved by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) is when the budget is brought down -that is, if he is not satisfied with the budget.


William Irvine: May I ask further whether the hon. member would guarantee to us the right to move an amendment to the amendment on the budget?


William Duff: I do not have to guarantee the hon. member any rights at all; he ha3 certain rights in this House just the same as any other hon. member. I do not think he need worry. The Speaker will be delighted to allow him or anybody else to move any amendment that is in order.


William Irvine: We had to worry about it last year, and did not get it.


William Duff: The hon. member did not worry very much; his hair has not turned grey. Now, while I have a good deal of sympathy with the sentiments expressed by this amendment, I feel that this is not the proper time to bring it forward. Every hon. member agrees that the burden of taxation is high; that many people are suffering from that burden, and that there is a good deal of unrest and dissatisfaction. But what can we do? We have to face a certain condition. We have a very large debt, the expenditures of the country are great, and the only thing for us to do is to bear our burdens cheerfully. But I repeat that this government, wherever possible, should endeavour to economize and save money for the people. I have faith in this government. I believe that if they are given an opportunity they wiil pare down the expenses so that not only my hon. friends sitting opposite, but every ratepayer in the country will realize that under a Liberal administration Canada's affairs are conducted in an economic manner. I.cubmit that in all the circumstances it would have
been far better if my hon. friend had not moved the amendment which he has introduced.


Mr. A. J. LEWIS (Swift Current):: Mr Speaker, it has been a pleasure to me to listen to such a moderate speech from the hon. gentleman for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff). I remember that last session he was far more fiery and had far stronger statements to make respecting the party to the right of me and also this party. But to-day his tone is a moderate one, and we cannot therefore extend to him the criticism that we can extend to the other two hon. members who have spoken and who also come from his province. However, some of the things he said certainly demand an explanation.
In the first place, speaking of economy, he says that $6,000,000 was spent on the agricultural interests of this country-and he was continually looking at us as if all the agricultural interests were centred in western Canada. Only a few moments previously one of the members from Nova Scotia had said that his constituency also was an agricultural one. I think my hon. friend will find that some of that money was spent in the Maritime provinces.


William Duff: If my hon. friend will allow me, I did not object to any expenditure for agriculture. I did not say it was all for the West, either.


Arthur John Lewis: I understood the hon. member to say that $6,000,000 was spent in connection with agriculture, that we' were demanding economy, and that we would not want any smaller expenditure in that regard.


William Duff: My hon. friend should remember that he and his friends are not the only agriculturists in this country. There are better farmers in Nova Scotia than there are in any of the western provinces.


Arthur John Lewis: I am quite willing that the hon. member for Lunenburg should blow his own horn; that has nothing to do with me. I am not saying there are not better farmers in the East, nor am I saying that all the farmers who have left Saskatchewan are failures. But if $6,000,000 is spent upon the agricultural interests of the whole of Canada, representing practically half the whole population, it is a very negligible sum to spend when we consider that $481,000,000 are spent for the rest of the Dominion. Let us remember also that we, the common people, are paying into, the public treasury over $80,000,000 in connection with the manufactured goods which we buy, and are putting a further like sum
t	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Lewis
into the pockets of the manufacturers. So that $6,000,000 is a very small sum compared with other expenditures that are made.
Another thing I could hardly understand as being consistent was the assertion of the hon. member for Lunenburg that as a result of the duties on fish many of his people were going out of business, coupled with the later statement that sixteen new schooners were being built, not for the races but to engage in the fishing industry. Wise and intelligent men will not make the necessary expenditure to the building of sixteen schooners for the purpose of engaging in a trade that is declining. My hon. friend, therefore, is hardly consistent in his remarks respecting the fishing industry.
I am reminded that the three previous speakers from Nova Scotia who have addressed the House have spoken about the "tale of woe" of hon. members on this side. I ask, has any hon. member in this House ever heard a greater tale of woe from any province than we have heard from Nova Scotia? If he has, I have yet to hear it. In that connection I am reminded of the formula of Dr. Coue, which I might paraphrase thus: "Day by day and in every way we are putting more things before you," and if there is an effort to effect a remedy analogous to that which is supposed to be effected in the human body by the application of that formula, it may be that in the body politic we shall get a feeling of health and strength so far as the Canadian West is concerned.


Lewis Herbert Martell: May I ask a question? Last year you got certain reductions in railway rates. What did we get in the Maritimes? How much have you in the West paid for the building up of Canada?


Arthur John Lewis: I am quite well aware of those reductions and we are thankful to the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) who brought in that report. We do not say a word against that; we consider it our due; and the very fact that the Crowsnest pass agreement was suspended for a number of years was due to our patriotic effort to h?lp Canada in the past. But now, when the same conditions no longer prevail, there is no reason why we should not -go back to the agreement we had before the war.
There are a few criticisms I wish to answer. So far as redistribution is concerned, my sympathy goes out to the hon. member for Hants who mentioned it, because possibly his own constituency will be amalgamated. That seems to be inevitable as a result of the numbers of people leaving the province of Nova Scotia. It does seem rather hard that a province that entered into confederation should
(Mr. Lewis.]
find its population decreasing day by day, and that it should have its representation in parliament reduced. I for one would be glad to see Nova Scotia placed on the same plane as the province of Quebec in that regard, because it does seem to me that the Maritime provinces, so far separated from us, should not be denied a voice and proper representation in this Dominion parliament. So I will be willing to support the hon. member in that respect.
He mentioneed another matter on which I cannot altogether agree with him. He said that the West should remember the Maritime provinces, because the people from those provinces had borne the burden and heat of the day. It seems to me that we also are to-day bearing the burden and heat of the day, and in some cases it has been too much for the frail body of humanity, with the result that large numbers of them are getting out.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll) in his speech yesterday referred to a letter that was written to the Scotsman, of Edinburgh, and he took it in absolute sense. I fail to find that it speaks of "all the farmers" or "every farmer", but only "the farmers," and so for that reason I think he was speaking generally, and not in an absolute sense. He was speaking of conditions generally as he knew them, and although my hon. friend contradicted the information in that letter, he will find on referring to Hansard that the previous speaker gave it correctly. It was to this effect, that he knew farmers in western Canada who were just as comfortably situated as the capitalists in Montreal or Toronto. I have had the pleasure of visiting some of these western homes. I have lived in the West for twenty years. I was a missionary out there eighty miles from the railways, and I visited hundreds and thousands of homes, and I want to say that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred it would take the average farmer ten years to furnish even one of the rooms that you find in the palatial homes of eastern Canada, and as for the Canadian farmer living in the same comfortable circumstances ns the capitalist in Montreal or Toronto-why. it is simply absurd. It seems to me that the man who made that statement knows absolutely nothing about western conditions.
The hon. member for Lunenburg also spoke of the Hudson Bay railway. He may have spent a day or two up around the bay, but I would point out that the two commissions that were appointed by this Dominion parliament have reported that the route is navigable for at least three or four or five months

The Address-Mr. Lewis
in the year, and not four weeks, as has been quoted. I shall deal with this in a few moments.
In regard to what has been said of western Canada, we will not play second fiddle to any man in regard to our eulogy of the Canadian West. We believe that the land is all right; we believe it is one of the finest countries in the world; we believe it is one of the most fertile soils that can be found; we believe that we can grow the finest wheat in the world. But in spite of having the finest soil in the world, in spite of it being one of the finest countries in the world, in spite of our growing the finest wheat in the world, we are not in a prosperous condition and men are leaving the country in large numbers. What we say is that there must be something seriously wrong when in a country that has been endowed with the finest possibilities, and where production has been granted to us by Providence above, and through the hard work of the individual, circumstances are such that a man almost fails to subsist. It is not a matter of a year or so: it is a matter of a number of years. I have heard the statement made outside by a member of this House that possibly it is the failures who are leaving the country, and if so, we are better off without them. So far as my district is concerned, if that were true, you would have to say that the men who have spent their lives farming, men who know all about the conditions, are all failures. That is impossible. They have farmed in the East, and they have farmed in the West, but owing to the economic conditions under which they have to farm they find it impossible to keep home and body and soul together, and it is for that reason we raise our voice; not that we are pessimistic, but because we feel if we do not raise our voice and warn these eastern men and present the real facts so that you may understand and sympathize with us and help us in every conceivable way, the confederation that was brought about in this great Dominion for the advancement of the North American continent will one day go on the rocks, and great will be the fall of it. That is how it seems to us at the present time.
The hon. member for Lunenburg said that no man had the right to get up in this House and tell a tale of woe or complain of conditions unless he had some remedy to suggest. He said that the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) and many other members who have spoken had not offered any solution of the problems they presented.
We believe that we have tried to solve the problem; we believe we are trying to solve it day by day, and we are showing you the means whereby it could be solved if you would listen to us. But that seems impossible, because we are speaking to a large extent to deaf ears. The hon. member for Springfield has clearly shown, so far as we are concerned, how prosperity and peace and harmony and unity can once more be brought to this Dominion. I may speak of that in a few moments.
The immigration policy of this country has been dealt with to a large extent, and I want to say this: Travelling on the train one day I met a man who said, " I have watched the proceedings down in parliament a great deal, and it does seem to me that the Dominion immigration agents are something like this. In a certain insane asylum, if they want to test a man's sanity, they have a great trough filled with water and then, with the tap still running, they give the man a bucket and tell him to empty the trough. If he starts bailing out the trough before turning off the tap, they say he is fit for the insane asylum and he is detained. But if he first of all turns off the tap, and then gets his bucket and bails out the trough, they say he is fit to enter into the commercial life of the land. Now if we could reverse that process and apply it to the immigration policy it might be of practical utility. In 1911 we had 7,206,643 people. The natural increase over deaths -in spite of the losses of the war, the losses caused by the epidemic of influenza, and the great mortality which took place during that period-was approximately 1,500,000. In the same time we received 2,000,000 immigrants from different parts of the world, making a total of. 10,706,643. So that we actually lost two million people, just as many as came in. In other words we are not making any progress. What is the use of men trying to raise families in this country, what is the use of our trying to keep pace with the natural development of the country when, despite all the people that are coming into the country we are getting no further ahead? There must be some reason for it, there is a leak somewhere. I believe it is up to the Dominion authorities to stop that leak and to so remedy the conditions that people in Canada will be rendered happy and contented. Either they should do that, or else they should give way to others who will take their place and solve the problem.
There are some things I want to say in regard to the farmer. I happened to attend a sale the very morning I left my home town
The Address-Mr. Lewis

to come to Ottawa. This sale took place at ten o'clock, and was similar in character to a great many other sales that are taking place in that community-it was a sheriff's sale. That sale was forced by the bank upon a certain farmer, and nine of his horses had been seized. The sheriff came along and inquired " What am I bid for these horses?" I said "Two hundred dollars". He said "We are not taking them as a whole. What bid is made for them individually?" Well, the horses eventually realized the sum of $187. Then we turned to that farmer's sheet of expenses, to the expenses of the sheriff, the expense of keeping those horses in the liverv barn, and the expense entailed by the judgment, and what did we find? So far as the judgment was concerned the farmer's liability was not reduced in the least-he had lost nine horses and his liability under the judgment remained the same. I am told that is the condition generally throughout the West with respect to sheriff sales.
I am not reciting this tale of woe merely for effect, but I want to state what I think will be the remedy. First of all I have no objection whatever to bringing in all the men that can be found to settle on the vacant land in order, as we are told, to help to bear the burden which is crushing us. But we must bear this in mind: In western Canada we are located at least 1,500 miles inland and we have to produce wheat in competition with the rest of the world. Unfortunately, owing to the long railway haul, and other expenses involved in getting our wheat to Europe, it is impossible for us to, at present, compete with others in those distant markets. And if you have an immigration policy whereby thousands of persons are entering upon and cultivating those western lands, can you not understand that it will have the effect of increasing the supply of wheat on the world's market? What does that mean? The greater the supply of wheat the less will be the price paid for it; and instead of the thousands and thousands of new arrivals proving a help to us, their labours will have the effect of detracting from the price we receive for our produce. We are told that our western wheat is demanded by millers generally throughout the world, that it is a product that cannot be equalled or duplicated anywhere, that it is a hard wheat different from any other wheat grown elsewhere. If that is true the fact of our , being located 1,500 miles inland is not of so much importance, provided the identity of our wheat is preserved and specified in such a way that the buyers in the world's markets will know they are getting a Canadian hard wheat. I think this provision is one of the

things which is essential to the prosperity of western Canada. Another condition, has reference to possible outlets for our produce. We have been told that the Hudson bay route is not feasible, and a damper has likewise been placed on the Vancouver route; but we believe that if the identity of Canadian wheat is preserved on the markets of the world, and if these two outlets are made available for export, the existing problem will have been, to a very large extent, solved. I do not believe that we are in reality selfish in seeking our own preservation.
There are other matters to which I would like to refer. The practice of economy in the administration of government has been urged, and it is very desirable that we should observe economy. But let me point this out: If -the proceedings of last session are carefully studied it will be found that during the first part of the session non-contentious items were brought forward and much time was occupied in discussing them, so much so that two, three and four days were devoted to the consideration of a matter of $500,000. But when the session was drawing to a close and members were growing tired, the government brought down late at night, or in the early morning, estimates involving the expenditure of millions of money, and many members were too tired to care much what went or " slipped " through. It seems to me that when they are dealing with a body of sensible and intelligent business men, the government should be actuated in its policy by sound business principles, and should bring down these large amounts of estimates early in the session when the proposed expenditures can receive thorough and adequate discussion.
I want to say a word or two in regard to the Near East question. I notice that almost evexy member who has spoken has eulogized the government on their position to that question. Now, I am one of those who are not afraid to declare that they are not prepared to eulogize the government for the action they took at that particular time. I will state my reasons why. We were told that this parliament is the proper authority to decide any big question of foreign policy, and whether we shall send forces to the Near East or any other foreign point, or engage in any large expenditure for such a pui-pose. I agree with that contention, but the point I wish to make is that we were denied the privilege in this case-w.e never had an opportunity of saying whether we should support Great Britain should they go to war or not. I think that is a question for parliament to decide; it is not one which should

The Address-Mr. Lewis
be left for decision to Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, or the Hon. T. A. Crerar.
I make this further point:	The Canadian
parliament did not decide that question, or the government of Canada either.
A message was sent to the British government, and they replied that they thought there was no necessity to call parliament together. Now then, in the ultimate analysis it was neither the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) nor his government, nor the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), but the British government that decided whether the Canadian people should have the right to say whether we would back up Great Britain in her foreign policy. I am not supporting any party in reference to this matter, but I assert that the people of Canada, through their representatives assembled in parliament, have the sole right to decide a question of such magnitude and of so much importance to the peace of the world.
In regard to the conditions now prevailing in this country, I notice that one hon. member speaking yesterday said:
I hope that when legislation is brought forward the legislators will see to it that it does not enhance the price of the commodities representing the necessities of the common people.
That is a very good statement, I think it is well worth commendation from this side of the House, and I would commend it most heartily to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) when he brings in his budget. He is the person to whom we should commend that statement-not to hon. members, but to the master hand, to the minister who brings down the annual budget. In that connection, when he is speaking of the necessities of life, I would ask him to remember that he increased the burden upon the >
common people last year by fifty per cent ' through the sales tax. We would commend to his consideration the necessity of seeing that not only monopolists, not only combines and other predatory organizations, but this government itself do not enhance the price of the commodities which wTe all have to buy to feed and clothe ourselves. Why, it is becoming almost impossible for a family man to supply all the needs of his family. We know that no matter how you try to tax those higher up, as one member said in the Imperial parliament the other day, in the last -analysis the tax is passed on from one person to another until it rests on the ultimate consumer. I believe it is the same in Canada. You may say that the capitalists, the manufacturers and the upper classes are paying the bulk of our taxes, but in the final analysis it is always the common people
who are bearing the heaviest burden of taxation,-a burden which is driving them out of the country.
In regard to the stamp tax, although some men think it is an excellent thing, I have nothing to say about the tax itself; I shall confine my remarks to the manner in which it is collected. This year we find there has been an increase in the sale of stamps. When you buy a war tax or an excise tax stamp you know that you are paying a specific tax the aggregate return from which will be earmarked; when you buy a stamp and place it on a cheque you know it is going to help reduce the war debt, but in the great majority of instances you may affix an ordinary postage stamp. A banker told me some time ago that at least eight cheques out of every ten that passed through his hands did not bear the proper revenue stamp at all but merely a postage stamp. No wonder the hon. Minister of the Post Office Department can show a surplus this year in place of the deficits of former years. I believe that if a stamp is to be placed on cheques and other documents a special stamp should be provided, so that the returns from that particular tax can be ascertained.
Now, as to economy. We have been told that it is almost impossible to have economy-in our public expenditures. The Minister of Finance spoke yesterday to that effect, and other hon. members from the Maritime provinces adopted the same tone. But their arguments were fallacious. They said that it does not make any difference how much we expend as along as we have assets-as long as our natural resources enable us to show a balance on the right side of the ledger. But is that true economy? In the final analysis this heavy burden of a great national debt is placed upon the people and must be met by taxation, not by our natural resources. Although Great Britain has a far greater war debt per capita than we have, she is iiving within her income, and not only is she meeting current expenditure, but she is reducing that expenditure day by day and setting aside substantial sums in reduction of the national debt. We find that the great nation to the south of us is following a similar course. Therefore I am not the least bit surprised that the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw) should move an amendment to the amendment that economy is necessary in the administration of our national affairs. It does seem to me that if the Liberal party is going to live up to the tradition that it stands not for the welfare of one particular class but of all the people, the government will see to
The Address-Mr. Lewis

it that when it has ascertained the approximate national revenue for the coming fiscal year-its cloth-it will cut its coat accordingly. In other words, the government should strive to keep the national expenditure within the national income, and also reduce the national debt. I would be only too willing to support any proposals to this end. But it must be remembered that last year, although there was a decrease in our expenditure on the navy and militia, and $30,000,000 extra was produced by the sales tax, we were not living within our income; and whether an individual, a community, or a nation endeavours to proceed on this false premise, that our assets are greater than our expenditure, bankruptcy must follow. And besides, we have no right to consider that our undeveloped mines and other natural resources belong to this generation, not at all. They are the inheritance of the Canadian race in the years to come, and if we are going to exploit them now what are our children going to do in ten, fifteen or twenty years' time when they take our places? I see no reason why we, as a people, should expect to develop the whole of this country in a few years when that development normally should take at least a hundred years. This is the last Great West in the world, the only place where people from other nations can settle. If we are going to take the surplus millions of European nations and populate this country in a very short period of time when normally, through natural increase, it should take a century, what are our children going to do, what is their outlook? Let us examine the situation carefully. Do not let us be afraid of it. Let us realize that we have Canadian-born children growing up at the present time with not one foot of free land that they can settle on, it having been nearly all alienated in carrying out the policy that we evolved some years ago. If there is no room for these people, then they will have to flock to the cities; then they will flock to other parts of the world, and not only bankruptcy stares us in the face, but as far as I can see we are going to depopulate the prairies, instead of on the other hand having prairies that are filled with beautiful homes where is heard the tramp of the children's feet as they come with their laughter and song. That is the vision that we western men have. It is true we are putting this condition before you day by day in the hope that men with vision, men with intelligence, will realize that if there is one thing in the world to-day that will stop fanaticism, that will stop Bolshevism, that will stop any of those isms that disrupt governments and cause

men to fight across parliaments, and one parliament after another to go out of existence, as we were told yesterday, it is unity among the people of Canada and a square deal for every man.
On motion of Mr. Hughes, the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, February 8, 1923.