1923-02-08

REVISED HANSARD

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to call the attention of the government to the delay in printing the bound volumes of.Hansard. One cannot get the bound volume of Hansard of last session. I am informed that not for many, many years has parliament met without the advantage of the bound and indexed volume of Hansard.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I am obliged to my right hon. friend for bringing this matter to the attention of the government and I shall have it looked into at once.


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: On Monday last I sent to my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition a bound copy of Hansard, and sent copies also to the Prime Minister and the leader of the Progressive party. The other volumes will be ready for general distribution on Monday next, I am informed. There was some delay in getting the index proof down to the Printing Bureau. It did not reach there, as I told my right hon. friend on Monday last, till the 5th of January, hence the delay.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH ADDRESS IN REPLY

[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

The Address-Mr. Hughes
opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Hoey, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Shaw, resumed from Wednesday, February 7.
Mr. JAMES J. HUGHES (King's, P.E.I.): Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne which was read by His Excellency contains an outline of the legislation which the government intend to introduce and pass during the present session, and the debate on the Address .in reply gives hon. members an opportunity of presenting their views on this proposed legislation and on any other matters which they think should be baought to the attention of the government. The debate should therefore serve a useful purpose. The members, being fresh from their constituencies, should have first-hand knowledge of the needs and requirements of the nation as a whole, but should have as well the latest views of their constituents upon the public questions of the day.
One paragraph in the Speech from the Throne reads as follows:
During the course of the session your attention will be invited to other agreements of an international character and significance, and to other matters requiring legislation.
This is pretty broad, and may contain many things. But it is more in connection with the specific legislation promised that I intend to speak. Several important subjects are engaging the attention of the people of Canada at the present time, but I shall refer to only three. The first of these, as I group them, is the financial question, or the question of ways and means, which since, the war has been brought home to every taxpayer and to every householder in Canada in the most direct and impressive manner possible. But, as another and perhaps a better opportunity for discussing this important subject will occur later, when the budget will be delivered, I will reserve any further remarks until then.
The next question to which I will allude is our social and industrial unrest, and in which, of course, is included the labour problem; and the third, is the question of transportation in which is involved the great railway problem with all its far reaching consequences and influence on every phase of our national life. Now, Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to present my views on the second subject to which I have alluded. While there is comparative industrial rest in Canada at the present time we have had our labour troubles and we may have them in the future; and it may well be that even during this session some legislation on this subject will be introduced, so that the remarks which I now make may perhaps be in order.
In the early days of society all or nearly all things were held in common. Then, as the race increased and multiplied and spread out over the earth new conditions arose. The old patriarchal order of society gave way to a new form of autocratic government. It was no longer the father but the king who ruled. Still further and further went the divisions and sub-divisions of society, until the last vestiges of the feudal system, with all its vices and virtues, disappeared until now in all communities called enlightened democracy in some form holds the balance of power. With the passing of the feudal system came greater freedom of opportunity, and fuller reward for labour to the mass of workers; but no one was now responsible for the welfare of the employed or the unskilful. Even the skilled labourer found himself unable to cope with the power of the successful commercial or industrial leader, who was often assisted oy some direct or indirect privilege denied to the mass of his fellows, so that the last state of labour became worse than the first. From out of this oppressed and almost hopeless condition grew the organizations which have since spread over all the world, known as labour unions. Animated at first by a desire to secure justice, and reasonable opportunities and rewards for manual workers, the movement spread, and by force of circumstances, became militant in nature. The status of labour was tremendously improved in consequence, and its organization was perfected. But over-organization often defeats its own well-meant purposes by destroying individual freedom of thought and action. As soon as unionism approached this stage of its existence, it became less concerned with the welfare of the unemployed and more concerned with the maintenance of its own place and power. The age of the professional labour agitator and the professional labour boss had arrived, and a new tyranny was born, more relentless and more destructive than anything that preceded it, as witness the horrible butchery at Herrin, 111., some months ago, and the terrible upheaval in Russia.
Few, indeed, could be more sympathetic than I with every honourable and lawful effort that labour could make to improve its own condition, and conditions generally, but at the same time few would be more resolute than I in opposing its unlawful aims and aspirations, or in preventing it from imposing the decrees of its sometimes badly-informed
The Address-Mr. Hughes
[Stage Direction]
leaders upon the rest of the community. And I take this stand in the best interest of labour itself, because if labour, or any other group of men, should succeed in establishing a tyranny, destroying organized and regulated society, the first and the last and the greatest sufferers would be the poor and the lowly.
It is often said, and I think generally admitted-often admitted in this House-that organized labour has the right to order strikes, tie-ups even in the production of those things that are necessary, or almost necessary to the life of the state. This proposition I deny, and having denied the proposition I, of course, deny still more emphatically the right of any man, or group of men, to prevent another man from working when, where, and for whomsoever he pleases. The family is the unit and corner stone of the state-
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: May I ask my hon. friend to make that rule apply to all groups, whether of employers or of labourers?


Mr. HUGHES:: Before I sit down I will answer my hon. friend on that point and give my opinion without any equivocation or reservation whatever. I have said that the family is the unit and corner stone of the state, and the father or head of every family has , the right and duty of supporting his wife and children by the work of his hands or brain; and no other man, or no other group of men combined, have the right to take that right away from him, or hinder him, in the discharge of that obligation because it is inherent, it is fundamental, it is God-given. Whenever and wherever that right is taken away, and that duty interfered with the foundations of society are either injured or destroyed.	'
I have said that I absolutely deny the right of any labour union to order a strike, because I cannot give to labour unions greater rights and privileges than are accorded to other men and groups of men. If any man, or group of men, in the state get more than [DOT] justice, some other man, or group of men, necessarily get less than justice. I think it has long been the law that a strike or mutiny on board ship is punished by the most severe penalties, because of the tremendous risks involved and the terrible suffering inflicted upon the innocent. For somewhat similar reasons a strike or mutiny in the army is punishable with instant death. No community can or should allow its firemen or policemen to go on strike-they must arbitrate. What would be thought of the doctors of a city, or the nurses of a hospital, who went on strike even against hard conditions? And it 
would be still worse if they went out on a sympathetic strike. If such a thing happened public opinion would be so outraged that these men and women would be driven from the country of their birth or adoption, and no other country would allow them to enter. And what if the farmers and fishermen struck, or loafed on the job, and produced only enough food for their own sustenance? Of course such a thing is unthinkable; as well might the feet and hands strike against the head and refuse to work, or the head strike against the feet and hands and refuse to direct their operations. The fact of the matter is that modern* society is so complex, and so complicated, we are all so dependent upon one another, that no nation can properly exist to-day without the hearty, sympathetic, honest co-operation of all its citizens; and no group of nations can prosper without the hearty, sympathetic and honest co-operation of each and all of them.
From what I have said it may be readily inferred that my condemnation of strikes though severe is mild compared to what my condemnation of lockouts would be, or even the bringing about of such a condition of things that strikes would be inevitable or probable. No punishment would be too severe for men who would or could be guilty of such crimes, because the head that would deliberately plan mischief against the feet and hands should be cut off from the body.
In this connection labour, and the community generally, have a grievance which I am prepared to voice. Labour says, with much truth I fear, that the over-capitalization and stock-watering of industrial corporations, and on which such excess capital or watered stock, dividends are often paid, gives money or value to men who are not entitled to it, raises the price of the things produced beyond their fair market value, and thus reduces the rewards of labour below the fair wage level. If this argument be sound, -and I feel there is much truth in it,-the policy or the manipulation which gives such results presses unfairly upon all classes in the community and helps no one except those who are its special beneficiaries. Legislation that permits such things is defective, legislation that encourages such things is bad, and will end in destruction, because, I repeat, if any man or group of men in the community get more than justice, some other man or group of men must necessarily get less than justice.


Mr. IRVINE:: Which group does the hon. member think has got less than justice in the past few years?

The Address-Mr. Hughes


James Joseph Hughes: If the hon. member will follow my remarks I will endeavour to explain that.
When we see men, who by manipulation of the stock market, by the cornering of the necessary things of life, by the promotion of mergers with a capital far greater than the combined capital of all the companies merged-when we see such men become millionaires and multi-millionaires in a few years we may be quite sure that the community as a whole has been wronged. I recognize the fact that rich men sometimes usefully employ part of their wealth. They establish libraries, they build hospitals, they endow universities and other seats of learning, they contribute to scientific research work, they even give alms to the poor, and such things are highly commendable. But the good done in these ways never compensates for the wrongs done the community as a whole. Better by far to raise the standard of living generally *than to make a few millionaires and a multitude of paupers. Better by far to have justice and charity in the proper meaning of these words than almsgiving. " Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you ".
Strikes and lockouts are civil war which must be prevented by the organized power of all the people. Because, the first and greatest duty of the state is to protect the lives and the property of its citizens, and particularly to protect those who are honestly endeavouring to make a living. Organizations or groups of men, labourers or millionaires, to extort more than justice'must at the very least be controlled or the state will eventually perish. It is hard to draw the dividing line, but when we see labour unions demanding for their members far higher wages and shorter hours, than unorganized men doing somewhat similar work in other callings can receive, we may be sure that injustice is being done. And on the other hand, when we see other men seizing the natural resources of the country, calling these resources their own, exploiting them for their own personal advantage and by means of this exploitation become millionaires, then we can be equally sure that injustice is being done. There can be no doubt but the earth and all it contains was made by God for the use of the human beings he placed upon it. If some men can seize greater portions of the earth's surface than they can by any possibility ever make use of, and will only let other men live upon it by paying them rent for it, then manifestly there is injustice.- And what applies to the earth's
surface applies, as well to the minerals, the water powers, the forests and every other natural resource. If some men could seize the air and the sunshine, and only let other men use them by paying for them they would certainly be seized and sold, but as they cannot bd readily fenced around they are comparatively free.
And yet the results and rewards of industry and economy must belong to him who exercises these great virtues, or you destroy energy, initiative and ambition, and produce stagnation and decay. The true division should be the giving to man the full ownership of everything he produces by his hand and brain, and the giving to the community everything God created for the benefit of all. It might be hard to draw the dividing line in all cases, but when correct principles are once recognized details become easier. And many difficulties would disappear if men and Christian nations would only remember the Sermon on the Mount; would only remember and practise the Golden Rule-to do unto others as they would that others should do unto them.
But in all probability it will be a long time before men and nations come to practise this rule. Then, why would it not be proper for the state to make laws to regulate the conduct of groups of men in the same way that it makes laws to regulate the conduct of individuals? If my neighbour and I have a dispute we will not be allowed to settle it with clubs or guns, we must take our dispute to a properly constituted tribunal, when, in all probability justice will be rendered-at all events we must be satisfied with the decision, because it is the best that can be done. As I have stated we must not be allowed to settle our dispute with clubs or guns, neither must we be allowed to settle it in a way to suit ourselves, and to bring injury to other people and to innocent people, the way in which strikes are often settled. All disputants no matter how few or how many, should be bound by the same laws, and if the state be unable to establish tribunals that will render justice, and if the state be unable to enforce the decrees of such tribunals, our civilization, as I see it is near an end. In short, I favour, with all my heart, compulsory arbitration. I know some of the arguments that are advanced against it,-that you cannot force men to work and should not try. I agree with that, but in my judgment the man who will not work, who refuses to work under reasonable conditions at all events, should not eat bread at the expense of the community and I have the highest authority in the world in fact the highest Authority in the universe
The Address-Mr. Hughes

who said in addressing men: "In the sweat of thy face thou shalt eat bread." And work is not a penalty but idleness is. There are only two classes of men in the world; the working man-and nearly everybody is a working man, -and the parasite or the beggar.
And now Mr. Speaker, I will take up the third question to which I alluded in my opening remarks, namely transportation and the railway problem with which the best and most highly trained experts in the country are hardly able to cope, and which is pregnant with the possibilities of great success or colossal failure. The ordinary layman should, T suppose, hesitate before entering upon a discussion of this question, still we must discuss these things. I know Sir Henry Thorn-tor. has warned the politicians away from this subject, but an older man than Sir Henry, Euripides I think, has said "That is true liberty when free born men having the right to advise the public may speak free." Now I happen to have the right to advise the public, and whether I do it badly or otherwise I cannot shirk the duty.
Some few years ago a working arrangement was entered into between the railway executives of North America and the railway brotherhoods, which arrangement is known as the McAdoo award, and I venture to say that nothing like this arrangement was ever before known in the heavens above, on the earth below, or underneath the earth. I shall not attempt to describe this arrangement, but I have my own opinion of the sanity or the business ability of the railway executives who entered into it. Suffice it to say that it provides for promotion by seniority and by seniority only, and it pays a premium for loafing on the job, it holds out inducements to men to loaf. I shall try to give a few examples of how the thing works out in practice before I conclude. There is no business under the canopy of heaven that could be a success handicapped by such conditions. Railwaymen are not angels any more than the rest of us, and they would be more than men if they failed to take advantage of some of the inducements held out to them to get overtime and other rewards from the extraordinary schedules under which they work. But, to their credit be it said, many of them do not take full advantage of all their privileges, and hence conditions are not as bad as they might be. Sometimes there are strikes by the railway brotherhoods in the United States, and sometimes the newspapers convey the information that there is talk of strikes by some of the brotherhoods in Canada. But I have more faith in the common sense and common patriotism of the 
railway men of Canada than to think they would be guilty of any such folly or crime. And against whom would the railway men strike? Why, against their own government, against their own brothers and fellow-countrymen, who are carrying a railway burden that is well-nigh crushing them to the earth.
Since more than half the railways in the Dominion have become the property of the people, what need is there in Canada for railway brotherhoods except for benevolent purposes? If a portion of the people of Canada, must organize themselves into a brotherhood to get justice from their own government, that is from the rest of the people, what kind of a country have we? And if the railway brotherhoods want more than justice for their own members, they are a menace to the rest of the community and should be disbanded.
When Sir Henry Thornton was in Charlottetown some weeks ago, I heard him speak and I heard him emphasize the necessity of willing co-operation in all branches of the service and among all the officials and employees. I heard him say there must be esprit de corps among all officials and men from the president down to the last office boy. I also heard him say that capable men should be selected for divisional superintendents and upon their shoulders should be placed large responsibility. With all of this I heartily agree, and I will go further and say that to these things should be added a desire and a willingness on the part of officials and employees to serve the public; otherwise there can be no proper efficiency. I do not think the Canadian National system has these things at the present time, and I do think the Canadian Pacific railway system has them, to a measurable degree, at all events.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me give you my reasons for the belief which I hold. A little more than a year ago, travelling from Montreal to Prince Edward Island, we changed engines at Moncton. The engine attached to our train broke down before we got clear of the Moncton yard. The next engine we got, broke down as we entered the yard at Sack-ville, a few miles further on. A month or two before that, while travelling from Sack-ville to Tormentine, the train stopped a few miles out of Sackville-cause, a hot box. Upon examination it was found that there was no waste in the box to hold the oil, and no waste on the train. After some delay we got started again; but soon another box became warm for the same reason and another stop ensued. Finally, a third box showed signs of undue caloric pressure, and this necessitated further delay. By stopping at every

The Address-Mr. Hughes
brook and pouring water on the boxes, we controlled the heat somewhat and got to Tormentine several hours late. What kind of efficiency did that indicate? Was that an isolated occurrence? I do not know. It apparently was not. While travelling from Halifax on the 30th day of October last by the Ocean Limited, I had a seat in one of the first class coaches. The day was cold and the car in which I sat was very cold and draughty. The officials, of whom there appeared to be a great number on the train that day, frequently passed through the car, and invariably they left both doors open. I shut the doors two or three times and some of the other passengers also shut them. I spoke to one of the officials as he went through the car and stated that, in my opinion, there was no use trying to warm the province of Nova Scotia with the little heat we had in that car. He scowled at me and shut the door; but in a moment another official came along and opened it; then a fellow-passenger told me that it was better to leave them alone, because a few days before he had drawn their attention to the coolness of the car, and they made it so warm that the cure was worse than the disease. I know that the temperature in the chair cars and the Pullmans is kept comfortable; but should not the comfort of the men and women who have to ride in the first and second-class coaches be considered and should not everything possible be done to make them comfortable?
The editor of one of the Charlottetown papers told me that he was in Halifax last summer and travelled to Sackville by the Ocean Limited. He had two fairly heavy grips and wishing to get them checked he went to the checking room in the Halifax station and made known his wants. There were two men working there and they were moving more slowly than the mourners at a funeral. They paid no attention to him. After' a little while he repeated his request, adding that he would miss the train if they did not attend to him soon. Still no attention, so he had to pick up his grips and run, and as he was going out the door they jeered at him.
I was in the rotunda of the Brunswick hotel at Moncton last fall, and ten or twelve men were sitting there, most of them commercial travellers, I think. One of the men was talking over the telephone, and when he had finished his conversation he turned to the others and explained that he wanted to go to Montreal and wished to travel via St. John if it did not cost him any more than going direct by the Canadian National railway. He
stated that an official of the Canadian Pacific railway had arranged the matter for him in less than ten minutes, and that it would take a day or two to make a similar arrangement with an official of the Canadian National railway, because it would be hard to find one who had the authority to act. And all the men in the hotel agreed with him. Last summer three clergymen residing in the eastern part of Prince Edward Island wished to spend a few weeks in western Canada. They desired to travel by the. National railways because they were national. They wrote to the then District Passenger Agent at Charlottetown for information. A week passed before they got an answer, and then a telegram came with thirty-three cents to collect. The money was paid under protest, not because of the amount, but because of the principle involved. The station master &t Souris reported that the money had been paid under protest, and later a telegram came back stating that a mistake had been made and telling him to refund the money. In the meantime the agent of the Canadian Pacific railway had been communicated with. A reply with all information came back at once followed by letters soliciting the patronage. These men travelled by the Canadian Pacific railway and they state that they received every kind of attention and civility. In nearly every city they were met by an official of the railway who inquired if he could do anything for them, and who informed them that they could stay off at any point as long as they wished, and could change their route if they so desired without any additional cost except the added mileage. In short, every official of the Canadian Pacific Railway seemed anxious to please. Moreover, the information they got in the West in regard to trains was to the effect that while the Canadian National trains would likely leave on time, there was no certainty when they would arrive at their destination. On the other hand, the Canadian Pacific trains not only left on time, but in nearly every instance, arrived on time. These men in common gratitude feel it to be their duty to recommend the Canadian Pacific railway to any friends who may contemplate a trip.
I have heard it mentioned during this debate that there were sufficient cars in Canada to take care of the traffic and that the government need not have given an order for more cars. Well, I know there was a shortage of cars in eastern Canada last fall. I know there were not enough cars to carry the coal from the mines to the people who needed it. I know that the mines were held
The Address-Mr. Hughes

up for cars and the dealers in coal could not supply their customers. And I further know that at that season of the year it took from four to seven weeks for a car of coal to come from Sydney to Charlottetown, a distance, I suppose, of about three hundred miles. Now, I do not think that it was efficient management for a car to have been six or seven weeks on the road, coming a distance of some three hundred miles. Cars, I believe, are worth four, five or six dollars a day to the railways, and the car that is twelve or fifteen days out of commission means a loss to the railways of sixty, seventy or eighty dollars, not to mention the loss which is entailed to the people.
So much as regards general conditions on the Canadian National railway system. And now, Mr. Speaker, I will ask you to bear with me while I relate some of the conditions on the Prince Edward Island division, with which I am personally familiar. During the last few years the management of that division has greatly reduced the train service and the train accommodation and has at the same time, I am convinced, increased the cost of the service. I refer more particularly to the eastern part of the division. Owing to the complicated schedules governing the wages of railway men, it is difficult for a layman to accurately estimate the comparative cost of operating trains, but I shall try, in a general way. For instance: Eight hours or one hundred miles constitute a day's work on a freight or a mixed freight and passenger train, whereas, ten hours, or one hundred and fifty miles constitute a day's work on a passenger or express train, the employees, in all cases, having the right to calculate the day's work by the mile or by the hour whichever method of calculation would give them the higher pay. Moreover, the men on the freight, or the mixed freight and passenger trains have not only shorter hours and fewer miles, but they have higher pay per hour or per mile, as the case may be. And further, when the hours which constitute a day's work are exhausted, every hour after that is called an hour and a half.
From the time the Prince Edward Island railway was opened some fifty years ago till a few years ago we had a daily freight train in summer between Charlottetown and Souris, and a daily passenger train as well. A few years ago the freight service was reduced to a tri-weekly train. This tri-weekly train is unable to carry all the freight offering, the overplus, or some of it, has to be sent by the passenger train which thus automatic-

ally comes under the shorter hours, the fewer miles, the higher pay, the overtime, and what should be a day's pay for the train crew is changed into a day and a half or a day and three-quarters. But, there is more than this. The passenger train that carries freight is always late, and when this happens day after day, passengers who can travel by auto or in any other way will not travel by train, and the passenger service is greatly injured.
But this is not all. The daily freight train between Souris and Charlottetown some years ago took care of the freight originating on the Georgetown-Montague branch. This the triweekly freight cannot do. The consequence is that the Georgetown-Montague train, which according to the schedule, has its terminus at Mount Stewart, has to be ordered into Charlottetown, some eighteen miles farther, as a special freight. Now, according to the schedules, when a special train is sent out, no matter how short the distance, or the time, it is a full day's pay for the train crew. There is therefore a day's pay from Mount Stewart to Charlottetown, another day's pay from Charlottetown back to Mount Stewart and of course a day's pay between Mount Stewart and Georgetown, or three days' pay in one, for that train crew. But even this is not all. The tri-weekly freight train between Charlottetown and Souris, trying to take all the freight, is often overloaded and therefore makes very slow time. It is sometimes out on the road sixteen hours. The first eight hours constitute a day, the second eight hours a day and a half, or two days and a half in one. And this kind of thing is called management by railway experts. To be just to the men I don't think they want this kind of management, they would prefer to have regular working hours and regular pay.
Mr. Speaker, I have not yet told all the story of the peculiar railway management we have in Prince Edward Island. There is a branch line of railway, extending from Souris to Elmira, some ten or twelve miles long and known as the Elmira branch. Before last summer Elmira was the terminus of the eastern line. Last summer, Souris was made the eastern terminus and a motor bus, or a little gasoline car locally known as a "jitney", with one man in charge, was* put on the Elmira branch to carry light freight, baggage and passengers, and a regular freight train once a week. The motor bus, or jitney, was a complete failure. The car was too small to carry the cream the farmers wished to send to the butter factory and any baggage or other light freight at the same time. The

The Address-Mr. Hughes
engine was constantly getting out of order, so that no one could be sure the little thing would ever get to its destination. It frequently broke down when about half way between Elmira and Harmony Junction, where it was supposed to meet the regular train, leaving the cream it had aboard at a side station' for a day or so, and compelling the passengers who started by it to walk back to their homes and miss their train connections that day. The repair parts were kept at Moncton, N.B. and when the thing would break down a commnunication would be sent to Moncton to send new parts. Sometimes these parts would fit when they came, but sometimes they would not. This necessitated further communication with Moncton and further delay. The consequence was the jitney was out of commission about half the time. When it wras out of commission the train had to be ordered out from Souris as a special. I have already stated that every time a special train was ordered out, no matter how short the run, it is a full day's pay for the crew, so when the train -was ordered out from Souris in the evening it was a day's pay to Elmira, another day's pay from Elmira to Souris the next morning, and, of course, a day's pay between Souris and Charlottetown or three days' pay in one. But this is not all; when the train crew would be ordered out from Souris to Elmira on Saturday evening there would be a day's pay for that evening, another day's pay for Monday morning and a day's pay for Sunday, because the men were away from the terminus mentioned in the schedule; and in addition to all this the man in charge of the jitney was on full pay all the time. And this is the kind of management we have on the Canadian National railways and this describes what the country has been paying for a demoralized service. If this is any indication of the kind of management' we have over the system or over any large part of it, all I can say is; God help the country. And Mr. Speaker, I have some fears that it is an indication of the kind of management that may be found outside of Prince Edward Island.
When the jitney of which I spoke broke down for the last time, and when it had been thirty or more days out of commission, and when there was no hope of it being able to do any more * work last fall, I spoke to the divisional superintendent, Mr. Grady, and suggested that he put Elmira back on the train schedule and let the people know they would have a train every day, thus improving the service and decreasing the cost. He informed me he had tried to do this, that he had put the whole matter before Mr. Kingsland, the
general manager at Montreal, and the reply he got was to mind his own business, and that he would make no more suggestions. My statement to Mr. Grady was that if I were in his place I would not take such a reply from Mr. Kingsland, I would say to him that I was minding my own business and the public business as well, and that I would go - beyond Mr. Kingsland with my suggestion. Later in the year, in the month of December, the Elmira branch was put back on the schedule and a daily train service re-established, but this was made a mixed freight, and passenger service, the most expensive train service that could be established. .During the summer and during the months of October and November, when a considerable quantity of freight would be moving, the people served by the Elmira branch had to be satisfied with a weekly freight train, while during the month of December, when there would be much less freight moving, a daily freight was put on. The only. possible explanation of such conduct is that the local management wished to so increase the cost of operating the Elmira branch that the general management would allow him to close it altogether; and this has been done. Apart altogether from this incident, which should be sufficient to condemn any management, I know that the Prince Edward Island division of the Canadian National Railways is not run on either railway or business principles, but on sectional and personal prejudices ; and if Sir Henry Thornton or any member of the board should wish to get further information on this point I shall be glad to supply it.
When Mr. Grady told me that Mr. Kingsland had given him the answer previously mentioned, I was surprised, because I knew it was not the way the officials of any large business concern act towards one another. I spoke to some of the other officials of the Prince Edward Island division in regard to the matter and they informed me such an answer was possible because " that is the very answer Mr. Grady would give to any of his junior officials who would dare to make a suggestion to him." Not only would they be told to mind their own business, but one or two strong adjectives would be placed before the word " business	[DOT]
I ask you Mr. Speaker, and hon. members to picture to yourselves the kind of co-operation, the kind of esprit de corps there must be in the Canadian National railway service when language of this kind passes between the officials. No business on the face of the Foot-

The Address-Mr. Hughes

stool could be a success managed under such conditions. I am afraid a general housecleaning is required.
Perhaps it will be a good place here for me to say that I think Sir Henry Thornton wili make the Canadian National Railway system a success, if any man can. I think he is a big man in every sense of the word. He has had railway experience on two continents; he has met railway men in the United States, in En <land and on the Continent. He is personally and favourably acquainted with wealthy men in the United States who may be willing to invest some of their wealth in Canada and so help forward the development of our natural resources and our industries. Because of the peculiar position he occupies, and because of having been born in the United States and now being a British citizen by adoption, he may have much to do in bringing about a condition of things which will mean much to our country; in fact, he may be a contributor in establishing better trade relations between Canada t and the United States.
' There are a few other things I wish to mention in connection with the Prince Edward Island section of the Canadian National railway system and I will then conclude my remarks. When Prince Edward Island entered confederation in 1873 it was on the distinct understanding that effioient steam service would be established and maintained between the Island and the mainland, winter and summer, thus placing the Island in continuous communication with the Intercolonial railway and the railway system of the Dominion. In fact "it was so nominated in the bond." This promise has never been fully implemented, either in the letter or the spirit. The establishing of the car ferry was a step in the right direction, but the benefits of that step will be almost nil till the Prince Edward Island railway is standardized, and I was therefore glad to hear Sir Henry Thornton say in Charlottetown a few weeks ago that this work would be taken up without delay.
Confederation has undoubtedly benefited the two central provinces, Ontario and Quebec. It has been injurious to the provinces on the Atlantic sea-board, and very injurious to Prince Edward Island. In proof of this statement many facts could be given, but a few will suffice. When Prince Edward Island entered the confederation fifty years ago, we had several small flourishing industries, now we have none, except a few small lobster canning establishments, which could not be moved away because the fish have to be canned where they are caught.
Mr. JACOBS; What about fox farming?


James Joseph Hughes: Fox farming is another
industry. All our industries save those I have mentioned have gone to Ontario and Quebec. Then our population was increasing every year, now it is decreasing and to-day we have some six thousand souls less than we had in 1871 and some twenty thousand less than we had two decades ago, which is equal to one-fourth or one-fifth of our total population. This is surely a startling and challenging fact. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick (are not increasing in population as they should, but they are not actually decreasing. Our people are engaged entirely in farming and fishing!, and I sometimes ask myself whether a burden has been put upon these industries which they cannot carry. Our climate is healthful, our soil is fertile, our fisheries are productive, and we think our people are mentally and physically equal to others, in fact many of them do well when they go abroad. Then what in the world is wrong with us? I ask the members of the railway board, I ask the members of this honourable House, I ask the people of Canada generally if they can be indifferent while one province, small though it be, slowly bleeds to death. We think our transportation difficulties have much to do with our dwindling population, we think the railway freight rates are unjust to Prince Edward Island- I shall give examples. We also think that no railway board composed entirely of men from the other provinces can fully understand or sympathise with our local difficulties. We therefore think we should have a man on the railway board. I put this matter as strongly as I could before the government, and I now put it before the parliament and the people of Canada, and hope for good results.
If it be thought that representation on the railway board would give Prince Edward Island too many men in public or semi-public life, so far as I am concerned, I would gladly give up part of our representation in this House and in the Senate for representation on the railway board. We have the Railway Commission and the Civil Service Commission, and if Canada is to be governed by boards and commissions we of Prince Edward Island want representation on some of these bodies, where power and responsibility rest, and where there is work to be done.
I said I would give examples of unjust freight rates so far as Prince Edward Island was concerned, and I shall now try to carry out that promise. I find that the rate on grain from Montreal to Halifax, local, is 32 cents per 100 pounds; while on the same article from Charlottetown to Halifax, much less

The Address-Mr. Hughes
than half the distance, it is 31 cents. Charlottetown to Sydney, still less than half the distance, it is 35 cents, while from other points on Prince Edward Island the rate to Halifax and Sydney is 37 cents and 38 cents respectively. If we take potatoes, the discrimination is still worse. We have seen that grain is carried from Montreal to Halifax for 32 cents. The rate on potatoes from Charlottetown to Montreal is 38 cents, and from other points on Prince Edward Island to Montreal the rate is 40 cents, and from Prince Edward Island to Sydney, 38 cents. It does not cost the railway any more to carry 100 pounds of potatoes than it does to carry 100 pounds of grain. Moreover, I always understood that railway freight rates were based, to some extent, on the value of the commodity carried; in which case potatoes should be carried cheaper than grain, but so far as Prince Edward Island is concerned, it is just the other way round.
The soil and climate of Prince Edward Island are admirably adapted for growing potatoes, and the farmers of that province are therefore much interested in their production; but it would seem as if the National Railways management wished to discourage such farming, because for every two bushels of potatoes grown, the railway gets five pecks for carrying them three hundred miles to market, and the farmer gets three pecks for preparing the soil, providing the seed, providing the fertilizer, planting, spraying, digging and marketing Of course, the farmer who grows potatoes gets nothing at all for his labour. I am quite safe in saying that the farmers of Prince Edward Island do not get more than a dollar for a day's work of twelve to fourteen hours, while the coal miners and the railway men get from one to two dollars an hour for their work-and yet these men, or some of them, listen to labour agitators who tell them they are slaves, and that they should strike for higher wages and shorter hours.
Modern civilization has turned our economic system upside down. The basic industry of agriculture has a load that it cannot carry, and some of. the young men on Prince Edward Island who understand farming will not take farms from their fathers as a gift, if they are obliged to live on them, and the young women will not marry young men who intend to follow farming as an occupation.
Lord Shaughnessy, the president of the Bank of Montreal, the president of the Bank of Commerce, and other men of large affairs in this Dominion, have said that a large immigration of agricultural workers would cure
9i
or at least help to solve many of our difficulties. Perhaps they are right. But we are producing more food products now than we can readily market, and if we produce two or three times as much, would it help the situation? It appears to me that conditions are such that men of British descent and perhaps men of French descent in this country, if not the world over-it may not be peculiar to Canada-are leaving the land and flocking to the cities to take up industrial occupations and professional work. It might be that men from some of the countries in Europe who are accustomed to a lower standard of living would be satisfied if they came to Canada and went on the land. That might be a better arrangement. These are the men who, if they were satisfied with a lower standard of living than we are accustomed to, might make a success of farming. I do not know whether that was the idea of Lord Shaughnessy and the others who spoke of immigration as being a cure for our troubles. It is the trend, at all events, of the British people to flock to the cities. Whether other people will come on the land and take possession of it, I do not know; but in the long run the men who possess the land will own the country, for the cities cannot renew their own lives. In three generations they die if they are not renewed from the country, and if that is the tendency of people of British and of French descent in this country, then other people will come in and take our place.
There is another thing in connection with the railway service on Prince Edward Island which tends to make young men discontented with farm work, and so far as I can learn, it is not found in any other province of the Dominion. Eight hours constitute a day's work for a stationmaster. This regulation, or something like it, may perhaps be all right in large cities where there is heavy traffic and the men are kept on the jump, and where enough men are employed to make a shift; but in small villages and country places where only one man is employed, it is simply ridiculous. When the station-master goes on duty at seven o'clock in the morning, his day ends at three o'clock in the afternoon, after which the station and the freight shed are locked and no more business is transacted that day. Just imagine a man driving in some miles from the country to deliver or receive some freight and arriving ten or fifteen minutes late and finding all railway business suspended for the day. Again, imagine a trader or business man in the town or village; who is loading or unloading cars having to quit work at three o'clock

The Address-Mr. Bnxter
in the afternoon, if he can't get a special permit to continue the work at his own risk. These things are of daily occurrence on Prince Edward Island, and this is the method pursued by the railway to get business.
There is another aspect to this kind of thing which has a most injurious effect. When three or four o'clock arrives the station master runs out his car-he can afford one-and takes his wife or his sweetheart as the case may be for a drive through the country. The young men working on the farms see what is being done, they contrast their toil and work of twelve or morb hours per day, with that of the station master, and they decide to get into the railway service or leave the country, and they^-are leaving it by The score and by the hundred.
There are stations on the Prince Edward Island railway where the train leaves or passes early in the morning, say six o'clock, and returns about seven or eight in the evening, and the station master is not there, either when the train leaves or when it returns, to sell tickets, to look after the freight, or do anything else. He comes for a few hours in the middle of the day- when there is nothing or very little to do-[DOT] after which he locks up and leaves. I know one station, Elmira, where the train left at six o'clock in the morning. The station master was not obliged to open the station at that hour, and did not open it. The station master at that place was the agent for the Dominion Express Company. Before these regulations came into force the fishermen in that locality shipped a good many smelts to the United States by express. This business gave the fishermen employment and gave them some money to enable them to support their families during the winter months. After the regulations came into force there was no station master or express agent there in the morning to take charge of the goods and give a receipt for them, and in any event the little jitney of which I spoke was unable to carry heavy goods such as fish. The consequence was the Dominion Express Company closed the office, the fresh fish industry was killed, the fishermen lost this means of making a living, and the railway lost the business.
A man sitting in his office in Chicago, or in some other American city, who is the head of this branch of the railway brotherhood, has the power to enforce these regulations, and the power to protect the brotherhoods in this kind of thing. In my opinion the time has come when Canadians will have to be master

in their own house, and will have to manage their own business and their own industrial activities.
I have not, however, despaired of my country or of my fellow-countrymen. I think if the matter were put before the railway brotherhoods and the labour unions as it really is, if it were shown to them that unless we all pull together we shall all be destroyed together, they would act the honest patriotic part and we would all acquit ourselves like men.


Hon. J. B. M. BAXTER (St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to continue the debate on the Address, I would like to pause to say just a word with reference to those who were with us during the last session and are with us no more. Individual references to our deceased colleagues have been made by the leaders of the three parties in the House, and I could add nothing to what has been said. But, I would like to express the feeling that our late colleagues, no matter which party they represented came here as Canadians believing that it is part of a man's duty to do his share of the work in the public service of the country. And in these days it is all too necessary to impress upon the people who have time to give, who have ability to give, who have force of character to lend, that they should come, even through the dusty ways of politics, to this Chamber to help in the solution of the very real and very grave questions from which we shall not be free, perhaps, during the span of a generation. The men who have passed, saw their duty. No matter what feeling of personal ambition may have influenced them, they came here and did their duty according to their lights, and I trust that we may take some inspiration from their example, for there were among them men of strong character, men of real energy, and men, above all, of absolute sincerity. It was said by a great Imperialist in the last moments of his life: "So little done, so much to do!" That is true here and now as it was when uttered by Cecil Rhodes the Empire Builder: and it ought to be with some feeling of the gravity of that statement that we should approach the work of this session. And may I suggest, Sir, that in approaching the work of this session we get at it man-fashion and not consume merely three hours a day, or less, as we have been_ doing for the last five days? Real work needs real energy and real attention from real men; we cannot handle the problems of this country by merely playing with them, or dawdling from day to day and occupying our time in other

The Address-Mr. Baxter
pursuits, letting the business of the country wait until we can rush it through some months later on when wre are all anxious to get home and are a bit tired of-shall I say?-passing our time rather helplessly here. There is much to do, and I would ask of those who have the programme in hand that they should let us get at the doing of it. We are going to differ, we are going to disagree, about the doing of it; the people of Canada are going to differ and disagree about the way we are going to do it; but let us get at it for we come here for the purpose of settling or solving problems, and we can only do that by being in action.
I would like to be able to refer to the Speech from the Throne in happier terms than it was referred to by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey), who once again donned sacerdotal vestments and inveighed against the barren figtree with traditional severity. He found it barren, and I do not think that, the group which sits to his right will be able to gather any more figs from it than they could even from the thistles which adorn the wayside. He gave it a good eurs-ing; and I hope that my hon. friends opposite will realize that, after all, there comes an end sometimes to the hopes-the dazzling, sparkling, scintillating hopes-which may be held out before the eyes of even the most trustful of mortals. My hon. friend from Springfield, after one session's experience of the scintillating hopes, comes back this year, gets on mount Ebal and gives the cursing which always came from that celebrated spot. Of course, he gives a little flicker towards us, but I did not think the group of which I am a member had been doing anything in particular, I did not think we had been irritating him, I thought that we had left him alone pretty well this session. We had not, as yet, reminded him of those most unfortunate results which I predicted last year would flow from that morganatic alliance into which he had plunged. However he has perhaps discovered something about the Conservatives-he may think he has-found something such as has been found in the tomb of King Tutankhamen. I may tell him that we are not yet quite buried, and that he will find that, even with us, we endure for a good many years, and that, like the celebrated Pharaoh, we have remained in the same place. He may look around about, and he may find another party which has not stayed in the same place with regard to its policy. I think he has already discovered that fact. Or, if he would like something a little lighter, something in the poetic vein, he might be induced to look up the quotation given by our dear
friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) when he was not occupying his present position, but when he was a critic of the then government, and quoted, I have no doubt with admirable zest and fervour, some lines that, although not appropriate then, are at least very much in place to-day. We can quote them back. They were as follows: - They promise, prepare, propose, postpone,
And end by letting things alone.
I trust that my hon. friends to my left can fully appreciate the vagaries of government policy which in two sessions have gone through the whole course indicated so pathetically by the hon. Minister of Finance. One hon. member says he does not appreciate it. In last year's Speech from the Throne I find the following paragraph-
It is intended at an early date to co-ordinate the Government-owned systems in the manner best calculated to increase efficiency, and to effect economies in administration, maintenance and operation.
And I have just had the pleasure of listening to a very interesting speech from the other side of the House in which the effect of economies in administration, maintenance and operation has been set forth in a most salutary manner for the government to hear. I learned, however, with surprise the other day from the hon. Acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) that this co-ordination had not been effected. I judged from what he said that there was some serious legal obstacle. What legal obstacle there could have been that was not in existence when the Speech from the Throne was delivered last year I utterly fail to conceive, but apparently things are put in the Speech from the Throne without very much reflection, and possibly in the hope that the ambition of the late P. T. Barnum may be comfortably realized, in fooling all the people at least part of the time until the next session. My hon. friend apparently did not know there was an obstacle, but they had a whole session in which to find out and introduce any legislation which was necessary and we come here and find, I think it was after the opening of this session -I am not sure of the exact date, but very close to it-that they did get through the order in council co-ordinating these systems. Why the delay? I do not want to be misunderstood. I never speak as an enthusiastic advocate of government ownership. I look upon government ownership as an unfortunate necessity, as something that cannot be avoided, as something that we have got to make the best of. It is no use to go back into the reasons that led up to it. There is no use travelling through the years when my hon. friends were in power, and when their
The Address-Mr. Baxter

unwise acts with regard to railway building rendered ultimately necessary the steps that had to be taken with regard to these railways. But we are facing, as some one said the other day, a condition and not a theory-we have the railways. I would like to hear something-and I speak in all seriousness; if we are going to face, this problem from a national standpoint, I would like to hear something more hopeful, something more helpful and more trustful than I have heard from my hon. friend the Minister of Finance the other day. He did not speak of this, and I had assumed, perhaps wrongly, that he was an ardent public ownership man. He certainly did not speak as such. I would think however thak-it would be better, for the education of the people of this country as to the necessity of vital co-operation of all interests in this country, to make the best of the amalgamated roads. I would think it would be well for a man of the high standing of the Minister of Finance to give us some hope and some light in dealing with this problem, instead of rather reprobating it and treating it as if it were something nobody could ever hope to accomplish. If that is the real view of the government, if they have made up their minds on this important subject, if they feel we can never make a success of these railways, then I would invite them to put an end to the farce at once and let us proceed to get rid of these railways before the burden on the country becomes more and more intolerable. There are just the two courses to pursue, one is to go ahead and make good with the railways, and the other is to get rid of them. Whatever course the administration sees fit to pursue, let us have energy and force back of it, and do not have any cold water thrown on the proposition by any member of the administration. The order in council has been passed, and we have co-ordination to some extent. Whether we have within the system the real desire to make it effective I do not know.
I am not going to criticise the choice made by the government of the administrator of the railways. I believe every man has a right to a chance to make good, and I propose to reserve any remarks or any criticism of that appointment until we get a full, fair opportunity for a demonstration and see what the gentleman can do. Let him be judged by his works. In the meantime I might enter a little plea for somewhat more action and somewhat less speech. This country is probably unknown to Sir Henry Thornton, and I trust he will be able to grapple with the tremendous problems that he has to face. But I would rather hear him
FMr. Baxter. 1
tell afterwards, if that will be necessary, what he has done, than hear quite so much about what may be done. While touching on this subject, I do not think that the attitude, perhaps, of some public men is altogether wise, when they tell us, both in this House and out of it, that you cannot keep the railway system out of politics, or rather, that you must have politics in the railway system. I am going to be extremely candid and say that I am afraid they are right. But I would rather have them say to the public the thing that they do not mean than say the thing that they believe. They do so on other occasions, why should they not do it on this? They are telling you, or they are telling us, that there is this higher class of politics, this general direction of the affairs of the railways, that is necessarily political, and that this House which, after all, means the government, must control. I cannot quarrel with that. The administration for the time being, must settle things. I think, perhaps, our criticism is that they do not quite settle things enough. What I do object to are the suggestions that come in this very chamber, and that I have heard in Sir Henry Thornton's presence at public meetings from prominent members of the Liberal party, that you cannot keep the road out of politics; that the country is paying for the services of the men who are on the road, and that they are going to have some control. That means just this to my mind: perhaps not all the leaders, but certainly those who control the political activities of the party, have made up their minds that, under the guise of public declarations that there shall be no politics, there shall be a very effective and very operative political programme permeating the whole course of the National railways. We have some evidence of this in the province of New Brunswick. I do not care how far they go; all I want is that the thing shall come out in the daylight. If they are right in what they say, that you cannot keep the railroad out of politics, then we ought to get together in this House and get the railroad out of the hands of the people as quickly as possible. If you can run the railway without politics, then we ought to use the whole force of all political parties in this House to keep politics out of the railway administration.
When, a little over a year ago, the party of which I am a member was making efforts to obtain or to retain the confidence of the people, in which effort we were not as sucess-ful as we would like to have been, in the Maritime provinces we told the people frankly wbat our programme was, not that we had the direction of the railway system, but that as

The Address-Mr. Baxter
far as we could exercise influence, we thought there ought to be large regional divisions of the government railways for the purpose of effective administration. That was approved by the then general manager, the president of the road, and a statement was made publicly; but our statement, I will be frank enough to say, was absolutely beclouded and derided, and the people apparently did not believe it. It was, however, like all our other public pronouncements upon the platform, or of the platform of the party, absolutely true and sincere. The other side were prepared to go to any length, and a railway millennium would dawn if they got back into power. Well, they got power as regards the province of Nova Scotia, got it abundantly; they got it as regards the province of Prince Edward Island to the full extent that that province was capable of giving it. And you have heard the result to-day. They did not get it quite so largely in New Brunswick; but they did get many of the counties in which the old Intercolonial operates, and I will say that, in the city of Moncton and through the counties of Nova Scotia where that railway runs, the people had absolute faith and belief that a Liberal administration would give them a regional administration that would extend at least as far as the city of Montreal; that that portion of the railway would be managed from the common centre of the city of Moncton. Hon. members will recollect that originally the Intercolonial railway. ran only to the city of Quebec; but that under the administration of the late Hon. Andrew G. Blair, when he was Minister of Railways, the Drummond County line was bought and the road was extended to the city of Montreal Now, I am told to-day-my hon. friends will correct me if I am wrong-that this eastern region is to end at Riviere du Loup. * I am sorry the Acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) is not in his place, but I would like to know whether that statement is or is not correct. On the assumption that it is correct, I want to point out something which is_ of a good deal of importance to us in the Maritime provinces. If the bookkeeping of that railway system is to charge up against that particular region the overhead expenses of the general staff, that will be just one nail more in the coffin of the Maritime provincial railway administration. If you take a lin' from Halifax to Montreal, you can administer, as regards the supervisory portion of the management, with exactly the same number of men as if it were merely from Riviere du Loup to Halifax. But, if you are going to pay as many men for a smaller portion of the road, why necessarily the overhead is distributed over a smaller amount of receipts and a smaller mileage of the railway. We do not, after all, want something for nothing in the Maritime provinces, but we do want the most efficient use of that railway which was built for us as part of the compact of confederation. We do not want to put an unnecessary dollar of burden upon the country to do that, we want it to be as self-sustaining as it may be, having regard to the absolute necessities of the people in the Maritime provinces, and having regard to conditions of Canadian business as well. But we do not want to have any part of the system loaded Tip with more unnecessary expense than any other. I think that is a fair business proposition, and I trust that before the session ends, I shall hear from the Minister of Railways whether this statement is a correct one and if so, what reasons have prompted the Government to allow that limited distance to become a regional system.
Last year my hon. friend, whose absence from the House this year we all very much regret, the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan), wanted the Intercolonial railway to be restored to its former status. I do not know that I agree with that. I want to see the Intercolonial railway of the best possible benefit to the Maritime provinces, and I believe, whether in public hands or in private h: nds, it would be better that the whole
22,000	miles of railways should be under one and the same management. I believe that in that way we can get better results, and I believe the people of the Maritime provinces will have faith that under one system or the other we shall get better results by having unified management and control, provided that the local necessities of the railway situation are given fair and sympathetic consideration by that management, whatever it may be. My hon. friend from Cumberland, however was probably relying on the Speech from the Throne for that year, which said:
Conferences have been arranged between the railway [DOT] authorities with respect to the reduction of rates upon basic commodities.
Last year the government had a programme until the Speech from the Throne was delivered. Then that programme, whatever it may have been, was put under the table and the whole matter was referred to a committee. On the 22nd of June that committee adopted a report which never saw the light in this chamber, and a portion of which was as follows:	-
Your committee therefore recommend a suspension of the Crowsnest pass agreement for one year, from sixth July, 1922, with power to the Governor in Council to
]36
The Address-Mr. Baxter

suspend for a further period of one year, if in its judgment the then existing conditions justify the same. And your committee recommend that suitable legislation be enacted to make effective this recommendation.
That was, in clear terms, a recommendation for a general suspension. It carried out the provisions of the Railway Act, which otherwise would have expired on the sixth of July, 1922. The recommendation of that committee was made, as the report stated, in view of the great necessity for a general reduction in freight rates on basic commodities as a whole, and in what was considered to be the general public interest, and not in consequence of the proposals for rate reduction made by the railways. We had that point of view, then, from the committee, that there was a great necessity for a general reduction in the freight rates on basic commodities. Our friends in the West were, quite naturally, striving to hold an advantage that they had, an advantage which had been purchased not by them alone but by all the people of Canada, and purchased under conditions very materially differing from the post-war conditions in connection with the railways. Now, the very fact that we meet here in a parliament duly convened emphasizes this other fact, that there always is, always will be and of necessity must be, sectionalism. I do not mean sectionalism in the improper sense by which one section tries to get something to which it is not entitled. I mean sectionalism in the fair sense in which it ought to be used in parliamentary institutions,-that sectionalism which presents its local difficulties, and its means or want of means of meeting these difficulties, and comes to parliament in a general conference to decide what can best be done in the common interests of the whole country, from east to west and from north to south. We do not always accomplish that, but I trust that, even though there are misunderstandings, we always have that point of view in mind. And it is with that point of view in mind that I address some remarks to this Chamber this afternoon. As I say, the West came here feeling that they had a right to something, to wit, certain rates lower than anybody else in the country could enjoy for the movement of commodities. They felt it was not fair to deprive them of that advantage. They felt that it was a difficult matter for the people of the West to market their wheat crop, and that, transportation being so vital an element, they ought not to be asked to give up the privilege they had been enjoying. Now, I am not saying that their point of view was correct. Indeed, I do not think it was wholly correct, but I say it was a point of view that had a right to be presented and to be taken into consideration in framing any policy. But it had

a right to be taken into consideration only along with the requirements, the difficulties and the needs of all other portions of Canada served by the railways. And in considering this matter it was for the government to formulate a policy which should do as equal justice to all sections as it is possible for any policy to secure. The government shrank from taking up that burden. They felt they were not strong in the House, and they proceeded to make a bargain with my friends to my left, by means of which they got all the political support they could obtain and gave in return-I will not say lavishly, but nevertheless they gave-rights or privileges in utter disregard of the Maritime provinces, of the province of Quebec, the province of Ontario and the province of British Columbia.-That may sound harsh, and I do not want to put anything bitterly; but it seems to me that it is just a fact. I am going to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to follow me, while I discuss the case of my own province of New Brunswick although I can only do it in the most imperfect manner. Without trying to get anything for New Brunswick that it should not have.
I think it is my duty to put before this House the difficulties under which that province labours because of that very bargain which the government entered into for the purpose of obtaining political support. If that agreement did not hurt the province of New Brunswick, I suppose I would not say anything -about the matter; and I presume that some hon. members may say that New Brunswick was not hurt. Now, I think that, from the very evidence taken by the committee that considered this matter and which was then shut off, I can demonstrate to the House that New Brunswick in some particulars was rather cruelly hurt. We do not pretend down there to be grain growers. On the other hand, we do not allege that grain growers have no rights; we think they have a right to fair treatment; But we think we have a right to fair treatment ourselves, and we cannot see why a large section of New Brunswick-I will refer particularly to the counties of Carleton and Victoria, where potato growing is largely carried on-should be injured by reason of any agreement with any other part of the country. We cannot see why any 'man in this House possessed of a fair mind should vote to destroy, to hamper or to impede the potato growers of these counties in order that some [DOT] portion of the middle West might derive a tremendous advantage. One hon. member from the province of New Brunswick belonging to the group to my left did vote so, carried away, again, by the party spirit. The party meant more to him than his constit-

The Address-Mr. Baxter
uents, and he voted to sacrifice the potato growers of his own constituency in order to help out the, no doubt unfortunate, grain growers who were, in the higher circles, pocketing the spoils in the way of overages, shortages and these other things.


Mr. EVANS:: Does the hon. member infer that the West is getting a service for which it does not pay?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I am not inferring anything of the kind, and I am not even going to discuss that point elaborately. What I want to get at is, that if the West wants, as the West has said it wants, all sorts of commodities to come in free of customs duties, and if it wants all commodities hauled as cheaply as can be on the railways, then, if there is an agricultural industry down in New Brunswick that is vital to us, we do not want to have our rates raised above the cost of haulage in order to make these other things possible for the West or the East, the North or the South.
Now at the time this parliamentary bargain was made last year the railways had already lowered their freight charges, taking about three million dollars off the general cost of railway haulage of grain; another fourteen million dollars was taken off by the retention of the Crowsnest pass agreement; making about seventeen million dollars of a reduction on one commodity alone, and paying no regard whatever to any other class of freight.


Mr. FORKE:: There was more money made by the railways out of that one commodity than out of any other class of freight they carried.	,


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Perhaps a greater quantity of that commodity was handled than of any other freight. Perhaps my hon. friend will also recollect the suggestion that of this seventeen million dollars saved to the grain growers by the action of this parliament, a very considerable portion was taken by the lake transportation companies.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: All of it.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Was it? Then perhaps my hon. friends to my left will contrast the action of the autocratic government of my right hon. friend here (Mr. Meighen), as it has been termed, when its leader took the bit between his teeth and suspended the navigation laws in order to afford relief to the West, with the want of action on the part of a government so friendly to them, but which refrained from granting my hon. friends similar relief. I am not fighting my hon. friends to my left and I am not working with them, I am simply putting forward the case of the
potato growers of New Brunswick, and 1 am going to ask my hon. friends to my left to examine their consciences and say if the New Brunswick potato growers have received a fair, square deal.
In the parliamentary agreement of last year potatoes were not mentioned. Now, can you tell me anything that distinguishes the man who grows grain from the man who grows potatoes? Is there any reason why a burden should be even partially lifted from the one and yet allowed to remain upon the other? I know my hon. friends will not say there is any reason. Well, then, what happened? The government's action paralyzed the Board of Railway Commissioners, and the potato growers of New Brunswick could not seek relief in that quarter. Railway rates were so much reduced that the railway companies, which have to pay their bills like every other company, had to get money from some source and the only source of course, of their revenue is the passengers and freight they handle. Therefore the Railway Commission could afford no relief by lowering the freight rates on potatoes or lumber, except upon one commodity only coming under the classification of building materials, namely, bricks, and in this instance the reduction was very small.
Now then, the action of the government, in combination with my hon. friends to my left, shut out the potato growers of
5 p.m. New Brunswick from any redress at the hands of the Railway Commission, a tribunal whose purpose is to see that there is no unjust discrimination in railway rates. That is the tribunal to which we go for justice in transportation matters. The Railway Commission said: We cannot give you any relief by reducing the freight rates on potatoes or other commodities without reducing the revenues of the railways to such a point that they will not be able to meet their operating expenses, and such an unsound financial position would only bring ruin upon the railways of Canada a little sooner. Remember, the government interfered with the Railway Commissioners, otherwise they would have taken up the case of the potato grower, of the -lumberman, and of the shipper of all other classes of freight. No one class would have got all they wanted, but the most expert railway brains in the country would have been put to work upon the freight rates problem, and we would have got the best attempt possible to do equal justice to all classes of freight shippers-a far better attempt than can ever be made by any government or any parliamentary committee, no matter how able it may be.
The Address-Mr. Baxter

Denied that recourse, the New Brunswick potato growers put their case before the parliamentary committee. I do not say that that committee was unsympathetic, for even in its first report-the report that was suppressed- a chance was afforded for equal justice. But the action of the government deprived us of that chance. The rates on potatoes from June 7th, 1917, to December 1st, 1921, were laid before that committee, and I have no doubt it will astonish some hon. members to hear how these rates were increased in that period. These rates which I am about to quote are in cents per hundred pounds of potatoes, and are calculated on the same basis as grain rates. In 1917 the rate from the potato shipping points in New Brunswick of Debec, Hartland, Andover and Florenceville to Montreal was 19 cents; in 1921, 34J cents. In other words, it had been increased 81 per cent.


Mr. SHAW:: Can my hon. friend give the House any idea of the distance involved?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: It does not matter as to the distances. I am sorry I cannot give my hon. friend the exact figures, but I could make a rough calculation.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I should like to have it just roughly for comparative purposes.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The Address-Mr. Baxter
to divert traffic from Portland to St. John and Halifax. Mr. Merrill also says that Boston is after some of Portland's traffic. Mr. Merrill states that the Maine Central-this is a very important thing if true; I am not able to guarantee the truth of it, but I want to know, and I want to know as early as possible, and as nearly as possible, whether the statement by Mr. Merrill, which I am going to read, is true or is not true-his statement is that the Maine Central, the Boston and Maine, and the Grand Trunk railroads have come together and given a preferential rate over their lines for freight going to the state pier at Portland, Maine. Already, he declares, this has meant a saving to the people of Maine of $75,000. He says further that the railroads have promised that as business develops they will make a further differential. This pier cost the state of Maine $1,150,000, and the cities of Portland and South Portland gave the site, which is valued at $350,000. I am not in a position to say that the statement in question is true, but hon. members will understand that I am vitally interested, as is every other resident in the port of St. John or in the port of Halifax, in knowing whether there is any, or the slightest, foundation for such a statement as has been made by Mr. Merrill. Last winter I ventured the suggestion that the differentials should be imposed the other way, and that there should be practically a prohibitive differential imposed by this country upon the haulage of goods from Montreal to Portland, Maine. In other words, just say to the people who want their goods carried out by a foreign port: "We will take them if you route them that way, we have got to do it for you, but it is going to cost you more, and definitely more, than it will to take them through the port of Halifax, or the port of St. John, over our own railways, all the way in our own territory." That is what I say would be one of the fair things to do in order to help to build up the ports of the Maritime provinces.
Another suggestion I ventured to make was that we should limit the British preference- not in amount, let us have the best arrangement with the Mother Country we possibly can, but limit the customs preference we give to the Mother Country to importations in British-and in that I naturally include Canadian-bottoms, sailing directly from the United Kingdom ports to Vancouver, Quebec, Montreal, Halifax, Sydney, St. John, or any other port in our own territory. This puts no burden on any one. It does not lessen the quantity of goods that will come into Canada or it does not enhance their price, but it does say to the steamship owners: "There will be more

cargo for you. If you are taking a cargo of grain and mixed supplies out of St. John you will get more package freight put into your holds when you come back because the importer will get the benefit of the lowest scale of duty by doing that, and we are not going to let him send it in by New York, Boston, or Portland and let these ports derive the same advantage as the ports of this country." That is what I- suggested last year. I see that it is the very principle that the government, and I give them credit for it, introduced into the commercial treaty with France. I think they have taken a long step in advance in doing that. I think they are entitled to credit for it. I think that whatever we may condemn them for, whatever fault we may find with them in other matters, we will say they are right in that. But let them make it general, and thus help to build up all our ports and use our railways to the very fullest extent of their capacity.
A little more reference to the Speech or the omissions from the Speech and I shall have done. We are being told-not in the Speech itself, you would not expect to find it there-that we have a wonderful government. I have heard some hon. members opposite tell us that, and I am sure they were convinced of the truth of the assertion. There were not so many members in the House then on the government side as there are to-day; but we are all aware that a little fire broke -out in a place not very many hundreds of miles from the city of Ottawa, and some of the fire department-I think even a gentleman of very eminent judicial talents, and perhaps gentlemen associated with the custom house and the naval service-went down to squirt water on that political fire in Montreal; and they did not put it out. We have a wonderful government here, but some of the gentlemen who engage in this laudation may perhaps see, by the flickering of the light of that fire some traces of the handwriting on the wall.
I am very glad of the results that we witnessed in the provincial field the other day, because they demonstrate that the assertions that have been made are not well founded and that the old Conservative party of Canada is still potent, active, and influential in all parts of Canada in the same sense that it always has been. It is broad enough, strong enough, and representative enough for all. The old party is absolutely alive in the province of Quebec and I am proud of it. I am glad to see that the verdict given the other day, though it did not turn a government out of power, yet demonstrated to the

The Address-Mr. Baxter
rest of Canada that there was unity in the Conservative party, and that we are only traduced when our opponents say that in that province we have no sympathy and no following. There have been hundreds of thousands of splendid Conservatives who have gone, election after election, to the polls in that province, and those who have gone down have taken their defeat like men, but to-day they begin to see the dawning of a better time, and clearly within their vision is the day when the Conservative party, by the aid of that grand old province, will once more take its rightful place as the exponent of all the people in the country.
This wonderful government that has been acclaimed, has been acclaimed for what? Not for last year's Speech, because that had gone into discard; not for this year's Speech, because it has twelve headings and no substance, and has been destroyed by a malediction from the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey). But the great thing in the Speech was the thing that was not in it-the splendid government that had not got us into war. I did not want to go into war. I do not know who was consulted about going into war or staying out of it, and I do not know what were the reasons that were determinative in the government staying out or going into war, or any other way they may phrase it, because it is all contained in confidential documents that have not been exhibited to us, cannot be exhibited to us and would not have been exhibited to us if parliament had been called together. If parliament had been assembled, all we would have had would have been a despatch-case set up on a desk in the House, and we would have been told "The reason for doing w'hat we are doing or not doing or not attempting to do is contained in that case. If we could show you what is in that case, we could show you the reasons for what we are doing, but we cannot unlock that case and cannot show you what is in it." We would have had to trust the government.
How far does the government trust us? I notice that the right hon. leader of the government took into his counsels my hon. friend who was formerly the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Crerar). I did not notice that he called upon my right hon. fi lend the leader of the party to which I belong (Mr. Meighen). Was it only a portion of Canada that would be interested in going into war or staying out of war? or is the thing really that which its appearance would indicate, namely that the most solemn, the
most tragic, the most terrible thing that could come before this country, the danger of another awful conflict, was to be made a matter of party negotiation and party politics? Was it in this way that they were to decide whether there should be war? Would a telegram have gone forth that we would go int war if the Progressive leader had said he wanted it? It is too solemn, I think, to be dealt with in that way. We do not know yet what the government's policy was. It looks to us as if Lloyd George, seeing he was not getting any definite answer, recalled his pioposal, and I am very glad that he did, because as I see it, if the Empire is really in peril once more, if it is not the political swash-buckling of Downing street, if it is real peril, there will be no question about the answer of real Canada. But I would like to suggest to the hon. leader of the government to get away from, any party politics in connection with this. Do not merely talk about calling parliament together, when practically all the issues are determined, and there will be only one thing for us to do if parliament is called together, but let us as a nation try to strike at the very root of this accursed European diplomacy and insist upon sitting in and taking part in the very inmost councils of the Empire and having our share in the determination, not at the moment when war is about to burst upon us, but long, long before, and let us have our say about the path that the Empire shall tread, and the direction in which it shall lead the feet of the people. Did the hon. member for Brandon wish to ask me a question?


Robert Forke: No, I was listening for
some applause after -that statement.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I was not expecting any, and I do not desire any. I was not making my address for the sake of applause, nor did I think that I was at the moment travelling on a plane that would invite any bucolic sarcasm. I wanted to go a step further- and there may be some in this audience who will be willing to listen to me-and say that after one hundred years of showing the people of the world how peace can be kept over a great water area and over a great land area, I think there are men in Canada of sufficient brain power and sufficient vision to teach something, even to the best of the statesmen of Great Britain, and I think that the homely common sense that has characterized our men on the frontier, and the rugged common sense that has characterized our men in the cabinet, might be of some utility, if brought into some of the European chancellories and might have its effect upon the
The Address-Mr. Baxter

course to be pursued by some of the nations. I would think that the Mother Country herself might be none the worse of a bit of good, sturdy Canadian and colonial advice, but you have got to give that advice soon enough,, it must be early enough, so that the successive steps taken shall be along the line of common sense, of arbitrament, of good feeling, and away from war, for this part of the world wants no more war. My proposition is simply that the government should endeavour to have direct representation, not merely of a high trade commissioner, but direct representation by someone of cabinet rank and authority, who would sit in the inner counsels of the Empire, would give his views, and report to Canada what was being done, so that long before war would even be in prospect, we would know whether or not all had been done to avoid a possible conflagration. It may be my hon. friend who interrupted me derides that point of view. It may be that he prefers to see Canada sailing on, fatuously content with her lot, until the moment when the red fire spreads above the horizon, and then he will call parliament together to sit down and talk about putting out the conflagration.


Mr. HOEY:: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman a question and I do so in all seriousness. Does he not think that the League of Nations, properly functioning, will accomplish all that he has in mind, without the idea of Imperial centralization in the sense in which he has expounded it? I am putting the question candidly for information.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I am not able to answer my hon. friend as to that. To my mind, the League of Nations will have no power unless it is backed by the fighting power of a number of states, matchless in their strength. But before you get the League of Nations doing what it ought to be able to do, you will have to have the bigger nations inspired with a proper view towards the rest of the world. The League of Nations, to my mind, will be a valuable power for keping in awe and restraining the minor nations. I fail to see how the League of Nations can ever restrain a major nation. At the same time, like my hon. friend, I have given such little adhesion to it in Canada as I have been able to give. I wish its purposes God-speed, and I will do anything I can to further its aims.
We shall have to consider the amendment and the subamendment because we shall have to vote upon them. This may not interest any one else, but it did interest me a little;
I have before me a comparison of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Spring-

field (Mr. Hoey), who certainly does not expect me to vote for it:
That in view of the increased burden of taxation and of the hardship which many of the people suffer from this burden, and the unrest and dissatisfaction arising therefrom, and in view of the desirability of adopting measures to reduce the cost of production, and effect such relief to consumers and producers as may be within the power of Parliament, the House is of the opinion that substantial reductions of the burdens of customs taxation should be made with a view to the accomplishing of two purposes of the highest importance :
(1)	Diminishing the very high cost of production, which presses so severely on the primary producers of the country at this time;
(2)	Reducing the cost of living to the great masses of the common people, many of whom are being forced out of the country by the prevailing economic conditions.
Then I turn to the Debates of 1920, where, at page 2510, I see the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) moved, amongst other things, seconded by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King):
That in view of the continued increase in the high cost of living, of the greatly increased burden of taxation, of the hardship which many of the people suffer from these causes, and the unrest naturally arising therefrom; and in view of the desirability of adopting measures to increase production and effect such relief to consumers and producers as may be within the power of Parliament, The House is of opinion that, pending a wider revision of the tariff,-
That has been left out of this amendment. Apparently my hon. friend for Springfield has no hope for any wider revision of the tariff.
-substantial reductions of the burdens of customs taxation should be made with a view to the accomplishing of two purposes of the highest importance; first, diminishing the veiy high cost of living which presses so severely on the masses of the people; second, reducing the cost of the instruments of production in the industries based on the natural resources of the Dominion, the vigorous development of which is essential to the progress and prosperity of our country.
I never thought my hon.-friend for Springfield was such a plagiarist, for this is really the grossest instance of plagiarism that I have yet seen in this House.
Mr. HOEk : All the great poets have been plagiarists.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: As I said, I hope the hon. gentleman will not expect this group to vote for his amendment, because we stand where he does not like to have anybody stand. We stand where we have always stood, whether we are right or wrong-and we believe we are right-oh the ground that a fair, reasonable, proper measure of protection should be given to the industries of the country in order to build up an urban population which will draw its sustenance from the rural population, both being interdependent. We do not

The Address-Mr. Baxter
believe in building up one side of the country at the expense of or ignoring the other side. We have to have a symmetrical country, just as we have a lake region, a river region, a coastal region and a mountain region. So I believe we have to have industrial occupations as well as agricultural occupations, and our vision-and we think it is a grand vision-is that of a country made great by the development of all its parts geographically, and of all the opportunities industrially which it possesses. We do not believe we can attain that result by adopting this amendment, however excellent a copy it may be of that which the Minister of Finance produced a few years ago. We have, perhaps, the misfortune, judged by the standard of politics of the present day, to have been sincere and to remain sincere still. My hon. friends to my left have never had any difficulty in knowing where we stand on this subject, and that is why, though personally friendly enough with us, politically they have been at more than arm's length. The fact was not that they did not trust us; they trusted us. They more than trusted us; they knew exactly where we stood and where we were going to stand; they did not like our stand, and they were not going to stand alongside of us. But they knew we had convictions and the coinage of them and that that courage was not abated, even though we came back to this House the smallest group after the last election. But what have they found on the other side? Gentlemen with convictions? They were expressed in 1920.


Arthur Meighen: All varieties.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: They had an opportunity last session to put those convictions into realization, and now they need the spur and the goad of my hon. friend for Springfield, cursing the barren fig tree to try to make it bring forth some fruit.
We have the amendment to the amendment, moved by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw), who wishes to add to the amendment:
That this House views with alarm the substantial increase in the national debt and urges Your Excellency's advisers to exert every possible effort to economize in the expenditure and administration of government and to lessen the burden of federal taxation which bears so heavily on the people of Canada.
To my mind,-and I think I speak for the group with which I am associated-that amendment expresses, not merely our view of what the government of the day should do, but very much more. It expresses something that should be heard and heeded by every administration within
Canada, federal, provincial, civic and municipal. Before the war, in the luxurious ease which Canada enjoyed, she was becoming prodigal; and you can travel through the West from which my hon. friend comes, and you will find marble palaces, which,-though I have no business to criticize, may I express the opinion?-were scarcely needed. All over the country there was a riot of display and of expenditure. But it was easy. We could stand it in those days. We had not the railway problem, we had not the war loan; and either of these, perhaps, we could have stood without the other. But during war time, when everything was moving under pressure, it was a question for this country and for every other country engaged in the struggle, not of what things cost but to get things done. If a shipload of supplies went to the bottom the obvious and the instant thing was to start another ship off. Men could not wait; money did not count. And part of a generation of Canadian people has grown up under that urge and that impetus. Necessarily money was distributed in order to look after the families of men who were suffering for Canada, and the standard of living was perhaps somewhat augmented. So that the country to-day is still expecting to live in the riot, the waste and the luxury, or at least the extreme comfort that we enjoyed when the world was in course of a tremendous upheaval.
Sir, we cannot do it; and if the supreme government in Canada does not set the example of absolute retrenchment in the cutting off of all except the things that are vitally necessary for the development of the country, how shall we expect the ordinary man in the street, the man working for his day's wage, to be content when someone says to him that he must take less? He will say, your government is spending money all the time. He will ask, and I will stand with the rest of hon. members in this House in this regard, because there is no distinction between us: how much work have you people done in the last five days? Some of you make a great fuss about limiting the hours of labour to eight per day. But what is that when you spend only three hours a day or less at work?" Let us stop a bit of the waste here. We can sit at night and on Saturdays, and we can put the business of the House through, instead of in four or five months, within the space of two. I say this in the light of experience. I have had some experience in other places, and I know that I have helped, in a leading position in opposition, by collaboration with the leader of the government, to reduce an eight-week session to one of four weeks, with some spare
The Address-Mr. Evans

time out of that. And no one was hurt, either, while a better example was set for the transaction of public business. The same can be done here. There is a man in Italy, Mussolini is his name, who is tackling the problems of his country man-fashion. He says that, beginning with himself and his government, all those working for the government shall have to work some more hours. Now, I do not want to turn anyone into a galley slave, but at the same time I think that the plain people of this country who are bearing the burdens-for after all it comes down to them, no matter through how many degrees you finally reach them-expect something else at the capital than an exhibition of a waste of time and of funds.
I am in hearty sympathy with every word of the resolution of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw), not because it is an attack on the government, but because I believe it contains a great deal of common sense that needs to be taught and emphasized in this country at the present time. I am sorry it is mixed up as an addition to the amendment of the member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey). Personally, I am in favour of and shall vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary, with the distinct understanding that 1 do not thereby commit myself, if it should carry, to vote for the amendment of the member for Springfield, with the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary incorporated in it. This part of the House does not stultify itself: we do not vote for free trade when we are standing under the flag of protection. But we will vote to emphasize the necessity for economy in the public administration, and we believe that the hon. member for Calgary is -doing the country a good service, apart from all politics, when he brings his amendment to the attention of this House. It seems strange, however, that it should be necessary to have either the amendment or the sub-amendment. It seems strange in view of the declaration of policy of the Liberal party. It seems strange in view of the fact that men in public life are supposed to have some regard for the spoken as well as for the written word, and that a pledge is supposed to be binding. Honour is not supposed to depart from a man merely because of his entering into the political arena; and if faith had been kept, if honour, instead of the love and the lust for power, had been the dominating factor in the mind of the government, there should have been no need, there should have been no opportunity, for my hon. friend for Springfield to have cursed the barren fig tree, nor for my hon. friend from Calgary to have pleaded for a govern-

ment which, without being parsimonious, would be decently economical.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


John Evans: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to several very interesting speeches during the course of this debate, none more so perhaps than the carefully prepared address of the hon. member for King's, P.E.I. (Mr. Hughes) delivered this afternoon, with the main parts of which I agree, especially those passages relating to agriculture.
The Speech from the Throne strikes an optimistic note, but the improvement in our economic condition there noted is due entirely to the increased production and export of agricultural products, and if this year does not bless us with good crops-for which the Speech from the Throne has a prayer

we may find ourselves in a worse position than last year. It is surely plain to all concerned that agriculture is the basis of our national prosperity, and were it not for the many handicaps and unjust burdens placed upon that one basic industry, it would not be long before all classes would again experience increased prosperity. But despite the fact, acknowledged in the Speech from the Throne, that agriculture is in a depressed condition, no government has tightened the screw's to such an extent as has the present-administration during the past year. Nothing has been done to dispel the doubt and uncertainty in the minds of our agriculturists except in one single instance, the lowering of the freight rates in the West, which has been more than offset by the machinations of a combine among the lake shipping companies. In fact, Sir, I think nothing has been left undone in the way of unjust laws to more completely than ever before deliver our workers over to those who enjoy the privilege of filching the earnings from their pockets.
As to the tariff system, I say it is a system of legalized robbery, more true to-day perhaps than ever before, and is responsible for the stagnation of agriculture and the driving out of the country of thousands of our best farmers. And the shortsighted policy of those privileged people for whose benefit the tariff was instituted has finally shut off their own home market. In last year's Speech from the Throne a promise was made to

The Address-Mr. Evans
deal with this system of trade restriction, and the hopes of every Progressive member were raised in the belief that the Liberal party intended to be true to its own platform and principles, which every one of my colleagues was prepared to help the government put into effect. But the subject is not mentioned in the present Speech, which I take to mean that in the opinion of the government and their supporters the tariff, as it now stands, is as perfect as it can be made.
We are promised this session a bill to safeguard the interests of consumers and producers from the undue enhancement of prices or unfair restriction of trade by combines, mergers, trusts and monopolies. I confess, Mr. Speaker, that somehow I have failed to become enthusiastic over the foreshadowing of such legislation, seeing that the government by one amendment to the tariff act last session completely delivered every consumer and producer over to the tender mercies of a skilfully organized minority, composed of these very combines, trusts, mergers and monopolies which are now threatened to be controlled. In fact, I do not think there is a member in this House so gullible- not even a Progressive-as to believe that the present government can by any further legislation control the machinations of these trusts, mergers, combines and monopolies. Since the session of 1909-10, when the right hon. Prime Minister, then Minister of Labour in Sir Wilfrid Laurier's cabinet, introduced a bill for this purpose, which was duly enacted, we have seen that legislation fail in its object; indeed, that very same year the Grocers' Guild and other combines openly laughed at and defied the law, and from that time forward such organizations have, according to their interpretation' of the statute, evaded its provisions in a perfectly legal way. What this country suffers from at the present time is the iniquitous system of the distribution of goods which is a product of protection which makes the cost of everything we need out of line with the prices of what we produce.
In defiance of any anti-combine bill there was then forged the last link in a perfect chain of combines which, so far as the consumers of this country are concerned, encircles the whole Dominion, and still remains unbroken. It is not new legislation that we need to control combinations that are restricting trade and preventing competition and legitimate enterprise, but the elimination of the legislation now on our statute books that is responsible for these very combines and mergers formed to restrain trade and unduly
enhance the price of everything that we need to eat or wear. It is not possible to enact any new legislation to achieve that end that would not be simply a joke on our statute books. It would be a travesty on the intelligence of the electors of this country to tell them that we were, by a new act of legislation, going to control the profiteers and at the same time leave untouched the very legislation which has given them that power, and under which they are so completely organized for their vicious work of exploitation. They have been aided rather than repressed, in this, I know, by a succession of governments for many years.
I think the intentions of the present Liberal government in this respect are plainly seen in an amendment to the Customs Act artfully put through parliament in the closing days of last session-an amendment of which even the Minister of Customs himself declared he did not know how far-reaching the effects would be. It was an amendment that entirely destroyed the right of the purchaser to have the goods valued at the actual cost plus a reasonable profit, and substituted a valuation dictated by the minister or by the producer of such goods in Canada-goods which are already enhanced in price by a protective tariff, and which pass through the hands of several combines, mergers, and trusts, operating defiantly in restraint of trade. Surely that is a fine basis for valuation, from the profiteer's point of view. It is an amendment that destroys entirely the whole tariff schedule as it stands as to rates of duties to be levied, and places the power of valuation entirely in the hands of the Minister of Customs or others who may be interested in the very line of goods he is called upon to value. In my opinion it is an amendment that is aimed directly at the trade activities of the co-operative companies, of agricultural and city workers, in their endeavours to keep down the cost of production on the farms and the cost of living in the cities, to a figure commensurate with world prices and the lower trend of wages. It is an amendement that at one stroke forms into one great combine every manufacturing and distributing concern in the country. The anti-dumping clause as it stands, puts the trade of the whole Dominion on the basis of the company-store system, and divorces the worker entirely from any interest he should have in the country. I think it certainly establishes a man's right to rebel. And all this by the Liberal party with a free trade plank in their platform!
Only a short time ago I heard one of the most prominent Liberals in our province de-



REVISED EDITION ' COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Evans
clare that Liberalism stood for liberty, and even the Premier himself declared that the platform of the Liberal party was exactly the same as the platform of the Progressive party, that Liberalism, in fact, stood for progress. Yet this party of liberty and progress has closed up the last gap of liberty that the consumers of this country had left open to them. What pressure was brought to bear between the date of the budget speech, May 23, when the Finance Minister declared that this clause was to be left out as it was an unnecessary interference with trade, and June 22nd, when it was revived by the Minister of Customs? I do not know; but it must have been something worth while that could turn practically the whole Liberal party at one stroke into a body more Tory in its actions than even the Conservative party itself, and quite as amenable to the same influences that dictated that measure in tho first place. Outside of the explanation given by the Minister of Customs at that time, no argument was made in behalf of that clause, except a statement by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff), who reminded the right hon. leader of the Opposition that they had slaughtered him anyway.
The Tariff Act as it stands is perhaps the most vicious piece of legislation that has ever stood on the statute books of any country in modem times. I question if there is anything quite so complete of its kind anywhere else in the world. As it stands it has closed up the trade activities of one of our largest co-operative companies, and an attempt was made this year to bring the United Farmers of Ontario under its deadly ban. Is this the kind of Liberalism that the Progressive party is invited to join? It is true that two who were with us last year are with us no more, but are now sitting on the other side.
I have no word of reproach for these men, but rather pity, and it is indeed pitiful to think that they have failed to grasp the ideal underlying the formation of the Progressive movement. It is pitiful that after being elected to support Progressive principles, and after sitting for one whole session with us here and in our caucus, they should have failed to realize their obligations to their constituents. They must present a pitiful spectacle to those who elected them.
Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


John Evans: Since they have failed to realize their obligations to their electors, and failed to realize the principles on which they were elected, it is well that they have changed sides. They will be more at home over there. I cannot understand, Mr. 
Speaker, a political party apart from a group of men who have gathered themselves around a set of principles so that, acting together, they might propagate and put those principles into practice. Whatever party is in power there are certain attributes of government that ought not to be overlooked. These are four in number-justice, legality, publicity, liberty. Justice denotes that no citizen or class shall usurp power prejudicial to the interests of any other citizen or class. Legality implies that every enactment shall have the sanction of law. It is hard to think that in these enlightened times in this country, any measure should be made legal without any regard for justice or liberty. Liberty implies that every citizen should have the privilege of asserting his individuality, for his own or his fellows' welfare, in any way which is not prejudicial to the rights of others. Yet the Tariff Act, with the amendment before mentioned, actually deprives one class of its right as citizens, and gives another class the right by law to exploit them. Under legislation of this kind we cannot wonder that the cost of living does not fall with the cost of farm produce or natural products. Today there is actually no relation between the price of raw material and that of the finished article in the case of anything produced in Canada. Take for instance hides with harness, wool with clothing and blankets, wheat with flour and bread. They have actually no relation in price one to the other. I was in England last summer and stayed a few days at Ealing, one of the suburbs of London. I saw there a four pound loaf actually distributed at the homes of the people for eight pence half penny. That is sixty-four ounces of bread for seventeen cents. To-day in cities in western Canada we are paying seventeen cents for forty ounces of bread, or twenty-four ounces less for the same price. And speaking of flour, Sir, a gentleman who Was asked last year to head the wheat board refused to do so for the reason that the control of flour was not given in the legislation creating the board.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman say who that was? I do not wish to press him for the information if he would rather not give it.


John Evans: I would rather not say.
However, he gave the reason I have mentioned, I can vouch for that. Now, we grant our millers an advantage of 60 cents per barrel protection on flour. Under this protection they enjoy a monopoly of the home market, while their large export trade is carried on in com-

The Address-Mr. Evans
petition with millers in all other countries in Europe; and they can cut prices whenever they choose in foreign countries, depending on the profits they filch from the home consumer to recoup them. Not only this, but we producers in Canada who find our market in foreign countries, where our prices are made, have to meet this competition at the other end as well. Any time they choose our millers can lower the price of flour in competition with our wheat on the British market, and so set the basis for procuring their supplies of wheat at home. It is not fair, it is unjust. But the whole tariff system is a one-sided, vicious piece of legislation, with everything free for one class, while the other class is by law exploited. Even were it the ideal state of affairs to make Canada a manufacturing country, one would think that this could best be attained by reducing the cost of living and thereby lessening the cost of production. It is this class privilege, which stands on our statute books to-day, which is fast depopulating the farms of Canada. And in saying that I am not speaking for the West in particular. Colonel Dennis, of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, is responsible for the statement that last spring 5,000 farms in old Ontario which ought to be producing were vacant. Another fact. Nearly half a million dollars worth of mortgages were thrown back on the hands of one company operating from Saskatoon last fall, and the superintendent told me himself that over 90 per cent of these farms are abandoned.
Perhaps that is not the worst feature of it after all. There is a bitterness caused by these conditions. The bitterness which exists amongst the agriculturists of Canada to-day is not born of hard times caused by world conditions and bad crops, but to the fact that anything the farmer has to sell is out of line with world prices, and that owing to artificially made conditions at home due to class privilege the price of everything he has to buy is enhanced. Now the farmer is willing to take his hard luck as well as any man, but he will not forever make'fortunes for others, for skilfully organized minorities who are able to get legislation through this House to suit themselves and are placed in a position to exploit the masses to pay for it. Our cabinet ministers can traverse the whole world making treaties of trade with foreign countries, and by one amendment take away the inalienable rights of the people to buy and sell where they can to the best advantage.
The dissatisfaction with our economic system is not peculiar to the West. I will now come to that wonderful province by the
10i
sea of which the member for Hants (Mr. Martell) spoke the other day as being so prosperous. The Solicitor General for Nova Scotia on the 18th January last year, when speaking before the Halifax Board of Trade, declared that the relations between the Maritime provinces and the rest of Canada would become so weakened that dissatisfaction with confederation would become general, and would lead to serious results. I think it will be admitted that the Solicitor General for Nova Scotia knows as much about that province as the hon. member for Hants.


Mr. McKENZIE:: If the hon. gentleman is referring to me I would say that I would have liked to have had the honour of addressing the Halifax Board of Trade but I never did.


Mr. MARTELL:: Like all the hon. member's complaints.


John Evans: My mistake, I should have said Attorney General. I got this from one of the most reliable newspapers.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I doubt its reliability.


John Evans: I did not know the hon. member was Solicitor General for Nova Scotia. In parts of the Maritime provinces to-day there is tremendous unrest, and in the West many are asking the question: "What good is Confederation to us?" I want to warn the government now that this feeling will not down until we have the complete elimination of class legislation and class privilege.


Mr. McBRIDE:: Will the hon. member explain, when he says there is a combine in the fruit industry of British Columbia, how it is, when we are selling fruit for 75 cents a box, the Grain Growers at Battleford are charging 60 cents a box for handling the apples?


John Evans: That statement has occasioned considerable laughter, but he laughs best who laughs last. I have for many years been connected with the particular concern he has accused of profiteering. I have been connected for years with an association which has handled British Columbia apples. We have handled all the way.from three to seven hundred cars of apples in one season, and never once did we charge 60 cents a box, or the half of it, for handling apples.


Thomas George McBride: I have a letter here in my hand from that company which states that that is the profit made.


John Evans: No grain growers' association in any province has ever charged 60 cents a box for handling apples.


Thomas George McBride: Have I the privilege of reading this letter?
The Address-Mr. Evans


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes, yes, read it.


John Evans: I have said that this feeling of bitterness will not down until the complete elimination of class legislation and class privilege is accomplished. How far the advocates of trade penalties in this House will deem it safe to obey the dictates of skilfully organized self-seeking minorities is for them to determine. I can only hope that the present class legislation will not be carried on to such an extent that it will further endanger the unity of this country, separating, as it does, different classes and different geographical areas and vocations. Certain parts of the Dominion are better adapted than others for particular products. These different areas are actually separated, one from the other, by a system of class privilege, which has prevented the people from thinking along national lines. They say Canada is a hard country to govern. It is only hard in proportion as class legislation has made a cleavage between the different areas. Perhaps one of the finest acts of statesmanship in Europe in the nineteenth century was the unity of Italy. This was brought about by placing all parts, north and south, and all classes, on an equal basis. I say, Mr. Speaker, that it will be an act worthy of the greatest statesman to so place this country on an equitable basis for all. We are inevitably driven to a decision of this kind. We must arrange some sort of an agreement for the different classes in the different geographical areas, if we are going to live together in this Dominion. An economic system must be found on which freedom can be built.
The Speech from the Throne mentions the lifting of the British embargo on our cattle. This is one place surely where our government will take a broad view of things, and, with the Government Merchant Marine, create some competition for our steamship lines operating on the Atlantic; so that the lifting of the embargo may be of some use to us. It still costs over $51 to land an animal from Saskatoon in Liverpool. I think it must be plain to all that as things stand the removal of the embargo to-day is of very little use to us. It is surely reasonable to expect that, with the greatest railroad system in the world, and a Merchant Marine in connection with it, freight and transportation rates will be such as will allow the commerce of the country to move freely over these lines, whether it be the potatoes of New Brunswick or the grain of the West. The needs of the producer surely should be considered first. If
{Mr. Evans.]
agriculture is choked to death-and it is already gasping-what will our railroads and steamships do for an income? In fact it will take many years to again reach the point we had once attained in agriculture and in the production of all things, particularly live stock. However much our highly protected industrial magnates may emphasize the surpassing importance of the home market, and be able to embody their will in the statutes of this Dominion, they must surely realize how' vitally essential it is that a prosperous foreign trade in agricultural products must be carried on, and to this end I say that agriculture must be encouraged and every incubus that prevents its growth, and, since the produce of our farms is sold in competition with the produce of all other countries, every undue charge that puts the cost of production out of line with the world's prices must be removed. The handicap of freight rates, of which the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) complained so bitterly this afternoon, is also a product of class legislation in our trade penalty system, and it is unfair to expect the wage earner to accept the remuneration for his service^ altogether out of relation to the price of what he has to buy.
I desire to reply to a few of the statements made by different members of this House before I close. The hon. member from Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) said that one "in every twelve persons in Saskatchewan owned an automobile, and he made this statement as evidence of great accumulation of wealth on the farms there, and that the farmer was living in ease and luxury. If the hon. member knew anything of western conditions he would know that a car is a necessity on the farm. He also spoke as though all the people in Saskatchewan were farmers, and forgets that we have fairly good sized towns and cities in that province. Quite two-thirds of all the cars are owned by urban dwellers, and after all, it is only the small cars of the most inexpensive kind that are owned by the farmers. My hon. friend does not know either, and he did not tell us how many of these cars are not paid for. An automobile firm that I knew, not operating in my constituency, but which I was friendly with, after having $80,000 out, was able this fall to collect only $300. My hon. friend says that we have spent $16,000,000 on road improvements in one year. Most of the work is done in our province by the farmers themselves, working their own taxes out, and when you divide $16,000,000 amongst
125,000	farmers, that amounts to only $128 apiece. To make such glaring statements without any qualification is not an honest argument, to say the least. My hon. friend says

The Address-Mr. Stork
that the farmers around Winnipeg are prosperous. He does not know that, and he can bring no proof to show it. It would be a wonder if a few dairy farmers around a big city would not be fairly well off; but I know Saskatchewan better.
The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) stated that because we had the Crows-nest pass agreement again in force, the East lost $15,000,000, or one-half of what the West would have gained by the saving in freight rates. Does he mean to say that the price now charged for that service does not cover the cost, or what? Does he mean to say that the rates as fixed by the commission, after the suspension of that agreement, should still be in force? Why? I can tell this House that the hauling of grain is yet the most remunerative work of any that the railways are engaged in, and a glance at their net earnings during the months that the grain is chiefly moving will convince anyone of that fact. Do we in the West not bear our share of the national debt? One would think, since coming here to this session, that some of our eastern members, such as the hon. member for Lunenburg and the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell) in particular, seems to think that Canada owns a strip of territory somewhere between the Great Lakes and the mountains. I want to tell' these gentlemen that we are in Canada when we are up there, and we are bearing our share of the national debt as much as they are. The East, as the East, has not sacrificed anything for the building up of western Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Evans: That makes some of our hon. members groan, but it is true, nevertheless. It is rather a big argument which I will not enter into now.
We heard a very excellent speech from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) the other day, and I certainly congratulate him on the strength and vigour that he showed in delivering that address. He appealed, at this time, not to create political chaos in this country. Even he does not realize the chaos that class privilege, with all its great penalties, is creating amongst the homes of this country. He was here in 1910 when we came 800 strong down to this city and filled this House in an endeavour to secure relief from these burdens. He is pleading for the party. We are pleading for the people. It is time at last that the rights of the people were respected, and the party must take care of itself. I will repeat, Sir, that I cannot understand a political party, apart from a group of men who have gathered themselves around a set of principles for propagating and putting into effect those principles. He says that no self-respecting government can accept such an amendment. That amendment was not made to embarrass the government; it was made in all good faith to show what we are after, what we believe in and what we want. But I ask, can a self-respecting people stand to be bandied about by false promises made by a succession of governments for many years, and say nothing? It is time that Canada was governed, not by one class with their eyes on their bank accounts, but in equity and righteousness for all classes, when sectionalism will disappear and confederation will yet become a true confederation and not merely a name, as it is at present.


Mr. FRED STORK (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
I have listened with a good deal of interest to the speeches that have been made in this debate, and in the main, we have heard a great deal of complaint as regards conditions which obtain in various constituencies. Coming as I do from the far-off constituency of Skeena, which is bordered by the northern Pacific ocean on the west and by the Yukon Territory on the north, I would say, Sir, that the same disabilities and disadvantages which obtain throughout the Dominion of Canada and, in fact, throughout the entire world, are just as much in effect in Skeena as they are elsewhere. But I bring to you, Sir, I think, some little ray of hope, and some degree of sunshine in the brief report which I beg to convey to you from the constituency of Skeena. We are carrying on there, and I believe it is a tribute to any section to be able to maintain its industries and to carry on its progress and development in the face of such difficulties as are receiving such tremendous advertisement in this House. The constituency of Skeena is and has been a pioneer constituency ever since the day when the great pioneer, Alexander Mackenzie, within 300 miles of the city of Prince Rupert, painted on a rock at the mouth of the Bella Coola river where it falls into Burke channel "Alexander Mackenzie overland from Canada, July 22, 1793." Pioneer countries require some attention, and I have every sympathy with the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Black) when he requests certain telegraphic communication * in the Yukon Territory. Without prospectors there can be no mining industry. There can be no mining prosperity unless the

The Address-Mr. Stork
prospector takes his pack on his back and hikes it into the hills. Without the rugged pioneer there can be no development and no building up of trade centres, and the pioneer, therefore, is entitled to some consideration. In that connection I would review very briefly some of the utilities which are of great importance in a pioneer country. In the first place, the pioneer expects that he shall have access to the centres of business. He must have methods of communication with the outside world. A great many years ago the Western Union Telegraph Company, in their endeavour to reach Europe by telegraph, prior to the laying of the Atlantic cable, tried to establish communication by way of Siberia. They started the construction of an overland line and got the work completed as far as the fourth cabin north of Hazelton. Repeated attempts had been made to lay the Atlantic cable, and at last, after the construction of that wonderful ship the Great Eastern, another attempt was made to lay the cable, and the transatlantic cable became an accomplished fact. The company therefore abandoned that overland line, and many years afterwards the right of way of that line as far as the fourth cabin north of Hazelton was utilized for telegraphic communication with the Yukon Territory when it was opened up. That line was completed some twenty-five years ago. Wireless was not even dreamed of as a possibility at that time. Had wireless been a commercial fact then, I am thoroughly satisfied that the overland line would not have been built. It was built, however, and to-day the upkeep of that line is a tremendous drain on the resources of this countiy. From Hazelton north to the Yukon there is one thousand miles of territory. This wilderness of a thousand miles is divided into stations twenty miles apart, each of which is manned by two men. The supplies that are needed for that telegraph line are largely carried on the backs of pack horses. Now, when you consider that the specifications in calling for tenders for those supplies stipulate that each package must not exceed a certain dimension and must be of a certain width so that it may be properly handled and be easily carried on the backs of these horses; that each parcel must be sewn in burlap and properly stencilled for the particular cabin for which it is destined; when you consider that the sugar and flour intended for these cabins must be packed in sacks each separately sewn in strong canvas, and when you take into consideration the value of canvas to-day-when you consider all these things you can easily [DOT] appreciate the tremendous cost entailed in the [Mr. Stork'
upkeep of that overland service from Hazelton to Dawson city. I am told that in the interests of true economy this line cannot be kept up under something like three-quarters of a million dollars per year. I am fully satisfied that this line could be abandoned and a better service instituted if there were placed along the coast of British Columbia, at Stewart, at Alice Arm and at White Horse, wireless stations, the initial cost of which would not be greater than the cost of one year's upkeep of the present line. Such a system as I suggest would give the Yukon an unin-terupted telegraphic service that could be kept in operation at all times and under all conditions of weather.
Among other things which a pioneer country requires are lights, buoys and aids to navigation. It was my privilege during the recess to visit Queen Charlotte Islands, and I was struck by the wonders of that country. I found in Queen Charlotte Islands a vast inland sea known as Masset Inlet, which today is just as dark as when Columbus discovered America. A great deal of development is in process there. The country around Queen Charlotte Islands is wonderfully rich in timber. A company is operating at Buckley bay and is doing a big business exporting lumber. It is highly essential that there should be placed in Masset Inlet some aids to navigation, for they are badly needed. But all pioneers are not clamouring to the government to have something done for them. I notice with a great deal of pleasure that some of the railroad employees along the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific have organized a company of their own under the direction of Mr. Len Bell and Mr. George Biernes. They are true pioneers in every sense of the word. Believing that up-to-date methods are the order of the day, they have filled a tremendous want in that country by inaugurating a hydroplane service between Hazelton Head and Finlay river. The locality around Finlay river is very rich in minerals, and I have seen splendid samples of gold from that region. But it has been almost impossible to reach that country in the past, because the only means of trans-poration has been by pack train. The snow does not disappear from the trails until the middle of June or early in July, and the rivers being in flood it is difficult to ford the streams. It therefore takes six weeks by pack train to make the trip from the railway into the mining district. These people, however, have inaugurated a hydroplane service, and the trip that formerly took six weeks now occupies but two hours. They are so enterprising that at the present time,-they have

The Address-Mr. Stork
taken the pontoons of the hydroplane, fitted them with skiis and will-beginning netxt week-make the trip over the snow. This hydroplane of theirs will carry 1,500 pounds of supplies, so that we can expect a great deal of development in that region. I am particularly interested in this matter because in that district are located the great coal deposits of the Groundhog country. There is an unlimited field of semi-anthracite coal that should prove a tremendous asset to western Canada. We have to-day, as it were, a river of money flowing out of Canada for the purchase of oil. Canada is not an oil-producing country, and we should make every effort to see that we burn just as little oil as possible and as much coal as we can in public utilities. We have steamboats plying on the Pacific and most of the railway trains are burning oil. This is not as it should be. Now, in developing our own coal mines we are only developing Canada. We are providing labour for our own people, providing a market for our own producers, and providing tonnage for our own railroads.
In this district of Skeena alone I am sure that the natural resources are of such a magnitude that they would be sufficient to discharge our national debt. In the mining locality of Stewart we have a gold mine known as the Premier, which in my opinion is the richest mine of its kind on the American continent. Last year it paid a dividend of three million "dollars. In the same locality c; Stewart there are a great many valuable mining properties; and the same can be said of Alice Arm, Anyox, and Surf Inlet. At Anyox one of the greatest industries of this country is in steady and continuous operation. The town of Smithers has blossomed out as a new mining centre, and excellent mines have been developed there. In far-off Atlin the miners are still carrying on the operations that have not ceased since the days of the early Klondike rush. At Telkwa we have coal mines, and at Ocean Falls there is located one of the greatest and best pulp and paper plants to be found anywhere in Canada; while a magnificent pulp mill is in operation at Swanson Bay.
The development of these resources is being carried on in spite of the difficulties confronting the country. In my own home town of Prince Rupert I am delighted to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that last year we produced and shipped 26,000,000 pounds of halibut. Eleven hundred refrigerator cars were required to convey it to the eastern market, and each car earned approximately SI,000. The fishing industry of the Maritime provinces was touched upon by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) yesterday, and the same disabilities that he complains of are also troubling our fishing industry in Prince Rupert. Recently the American tariff has imposed a duty of two cents a pound upon our halibut. This is not the time nor place to discuss this matter, but I hope that steps are being taken by the government to" remove this disability.
Allow me to say a word to the western Progressives and the growers of grain on the prairies. Complaint has been made that the benefits which, accrued from the restoration of the Crowsnest pass agreement have been largely nullified by the action of an alleged combine of shipping interests on the lakes.
I would say to the grain growers of the West that I believe they have right now a remedy in their own hands to meet that handicap. If you will ship your grain through the port of Prince Rupert you will find that no combine exists there; you will find that you can ship your cars right on to the wharf instead of their being stopped twenty-five miles from tide water and transferred to another railroad; you will not have to pay tolls to cross any bridge; you will not be called upon to again transfer your cars to a third railroad and be subject to switching charges; and moreover there will be no danger of your wheat being mixed with inferior grades. We have heard something recently in regard to the adulteration of western wheat when it gets into New York city. Let me assure you that when your No. 1 hard is shipped from Prince Rupert it will still be No. 1 hard when it reaches the foreign market for which it is destined.
But you may ask: What port facilities have you got? We have at present the most up-to-date ocean-going freight warehouse on the Pacific coast. Not in Los Angeles, nor in San Francisco, nor in Seattle, nor in Vancouver is there such an up-to-date warehouse as we possess to-day. This warehouse is 800 feet long by 200 feet wide and is equipped with the most modern machinery. If your wheat is in sacks, we can handle it more expeditiously than any other port in Canada. If it is in bulk, our facilities can take just as good care of it as those of any other port in the Dominion. And the Canadian Government Merchant Marine would be glad of your business. Further, when your wheat is taken by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, or by any other shipping organization, you will not be subject to any pilotage charges from Prince Rupert, for there is no dangerous entrance to be navigated, and it follows that no high rate of insurance is charged. Let me add that if you give your business to the port of Prince Rupert, and if the present
The Address-Mr. Stork

facilities be found inadequate, our northern people will see to it that adequate facilities are forthcoming. Allow me to quote an article from the Financial Post of January 29 last dealing with the same question:
The Winnipeg Grain Exchange has ascertained from actual transactions in 1922 that the farmer can get twelve cents per bushel more by shipping his wheat through a Pacific port than by the Fort William and the Great Lakes route. This is on the basis of the present railway rate discrimination against the Pacific coast whereunder wheat is hauled 1,400 miles eastward for the same rate charged to haul wheat 700 miles westward. When the present discrimination is removed, the permanent advantage to the farmer will, it is said, be about sixteen cents a bushel, and the total gain to the farmers as a result of shipping by the Pacific coast reach $40,000,000 a year.
Prince Rupert has been working for months on an elevator project, and business interests in that city believe that the government is likely to co-operate with them in this enterprise. The fact that Prince Rupert is the northern terminus of the Canadian National Railway (G.T.P.) and closer to the grain country of northern Alberta and Saskatchewan than the southern seaports of British Columbia is strongly in that city's favor, as well as the fact that the route between Prince Rupert and the Far East is considerably shorter than the route between Vancouver or Victoria and the Far East.
I think this will give our farmer friends some indication of the faith we have in the development of our northern port. We in Piince Rupert do not intend to see this port teiminal of the Grand Trunk Pacific with all its advantages overlooked. This road was built for keeps, and we propose to keep it. We have a grade only four-tenths of one per cent, and at that we have compensated curvature. It was stated in the House yesterday that the Canadian Northern end of the Canadian National system in British Clumbia is the best part of the road. Well, I believe that the hon. member who made that assertion was conscientious and made it by reason of having some report placed in his hands; but that report to my way of thinking must have been prepared by a Canadian Northern official. On the face of it, it might appear as if the Canadian Northern end of the National Railways into Vancouver was all that the report claimed for it; however, I do not believe that that is the case. The Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific run over the same tracks from Edmonton as far west as Red Pass Junction. The Vancouver people take it upon themselves to term their portion the main line, and our portion a branch or stub line from the junction to Prince Rupert. They have not half as much right to term their portion the main line as we have to claim that distinction for our portion, for the reason that the Grand Trunk Pacific line into Prince Rupert is much better constructed 
than the Canadian Northern line ever was or
ever can be.
We have been put to some disadvantage by these comparisons. On my way down here the porter of the car in which I was riding told me of an incident that happened on his previous trip. The train for the West is made up at Edmonton and includes a sleeper for Vancouver and another for Prince Rupert. This train is run through as far as Jasper, where it is split up, one part going to Vancouver and the other part to Prince Rupert. There were two travellers on the train going west on this particular occasion, one for Vancouver, and one for Prince Rupert, and both were placed in the Vancouver car. The Prince Rupert car was pulled empty as far as Jasper. When one of the travellers got his ticket at Edmonton, he was advised, "When you get to Jasper, transfer there, because the Prince Rupert car will be waiting for you," and when he arrived at Jasper he was transferred from the Vancouver car into the Prince Rupert car. Undoubtedly the reports will show that the traffic going into Vancouver received credit for that particular sleeping car accommodation from Edmonton as far as Jasper, when in reality it belonged to the business going into Prince Rupert. I am fairly _ satisfied that the freight traffic is handled in the same way.
When the Montreal Board of Trade paid our coast a visit last summer they came to Prince Rupert in sixteen heavy Pullman cars. One of the Grand Trunk officials was ordered to put two engines on that particular train, but he did not do so because in his judgment one engine was enough. I suppose he since may have been dismissed for his insubordination, but be that as it may that train of sixteen heavy Pullman cars was hauled by one engine from Prince Rupert right through to Winnipeg, and there is no other road on the North American continent that can equal that feat. If they had put on two engines, as the official was ordered to do, I suppose the statement would have been made that they had to use two engines. But no, they did not. One would have done it, and if one would have done it, why would they use two? That is the kind of game we have had played on us ever since the inauguration of the Grand Trunk Pacific. In the early days of the construction of the Canadian Northern railway, a train coming out of Vancouver was headed off by a slide in front and hemmed in by a slide in the rear, and for five days that train stood stalled on the track on the banks of the river. The outcome was that they had to sling a cable across the river and rescue the passen-

The Address-Sir Henry Drayton
gers. That is a deplorable accident that may happen on any road, but picture, if you can, the advertising it would have received if it had happened on the Grand Trunk Pacific. Why, every man, woman, and child in this Dominion would have heard about it, and would not have been permitted to forget it. They would have had moving pictures of it, showing the rescue of the passengers from the Grand Trunk Pacific.
I have spoken at much greater length than I intended. I simply wish to say in closing that the people of northern British Columbia are, many of them, carrying on their part in the face of adverse conditions and unfair freight rates, but they have faith in the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier as expressed in the Grand Trunk Pacific railway and we hope and expect that that road will still come into its own.


Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, at the opening of my remarks, may I associate myself with those members who have spoken so many words of congratulation to the mover (Mr. Putnam) and the seconder (Mr. Rheaume) of the Address. May I also associate myself with the expressions of condolence in respect of members who are now no longer with us, and with the words of welcome to our new brethren.
It was not my intention at all to weary the House with a speech on this Address, but the speech made the other day by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has made it necessary that I should trespass somewhat upon the time of the House.
I want first to say something else in the way of congratulation. I want to congratulate the House and the Minister of Finance upon the results of that trip of his overseas. He has come back to us in great shape. He is in splendid form, and is looking ever so much better than when he went away. We are all very happy to see him looking so well, and to find him so vigorous. I think we are all at one in that respect. I only wish, Mr. Speaker, that I could say as much for the substance of the speech as I can say with all truthfulness of the speaker.
We have not from this side of the House done anything to prolong this debate. I think I am the third speaker from the official opposition. Nor indeed did our leader in opening the debate enter the field of-what shall we call it?-the field which might be reserved for very contentious political matters. Why, he was so mild and so quiet that the Prime Minister congratulated him upon his utterances, and said how pleased he was to be able to agree with so very much that the leader of the Opposition had said. Then a change took place. Amendments were made to the Address. Something had to be done to revive the party spirit, and the government called to their assistance that gentleman above all others who was most capable of performing that very necessary function: and he did it well. They called to their assistance that member of the government who was the most likely to command the respect of my friends to my left, to whom his appeals were really directed. Yes, and for the purpose of making those appeals more pointed, attacks were made upon the leader of the Opposition growing out of his address.
I want to say in the first place, Mr. Speaker, that in every point taken by the hon. leader of the Opposition he was correct in his information. I want to say that just as bluntly and as plainly as I can. What did he say? He said that there was an increase in the debt. Is there any doubt about it? His figures were the figures of the hon. Minister of Finance. He also said that there had been more collected through customs taxation. Is there any doubt about it? The figures, again, are the figures of the hon. Minister of Finance. He also gave certain percentages. Again is there any doubt about his figures? The percentages are correct. It may well be that percentages do not amount to much. The taxpayer, after all, is not so much interested in percentages. But the fact is that a considerably greater sum of money has been taken from the people of the country for customs this year than was taken last year, and that is the gravamen of what the hon. leader of the Opposition said. It is quite true. It is also true that, over and above that, increases were made in the sales tax.
There is another thing. Although corrected by my hon. leader, the hon. Minister of Finance stuck to it that a direct charge had been made against him of floating money in the New York market, that that of itself was a crime, and he maintained that it was a charge, not simply a remark which had grown out of something said by the hon. Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) during the election campaign. Let us have no doubt about this matter. During the speech of the Minister of Finance, as reported at page 99 of Hansard, the leader of the Opposition is thus reported:
Mr. Meighen: The hon. member will do me the justice to say that I introduced that with reference to the speech made by the Minister of Justice, who stated that we owed the United States so much in 1921 that we were drifting towards annexation.
,	COMMONS
The Address-Sir Henry Drayton
The following discussion then took place.
Mr. Fielding: No, my right hon. friend did not say that.
Mr. Meighen: Oh yes.
Mr. Fielding: I think I have what my right hon. friend said. What he may have had in the back of his head. I do not know, but what appears on Hansard is the simple statement that we were increasing our obligations and increasing our obligations to the United States. That was our great offence.
Mr. Meighen: I referred to the speech of the Minister of Justice.
Mr. Fielding: My right hon. friend, in the speech to which I am replying, to the best of my Knowledge, made no allusion to the Minister of Justice.
With the consent of the House I propose to lead exactly what was said by the leader of the opposition, and 1 quote from page 21 of Hansard:
In that speech-
Referring to the Speech from the Throne of last yeargovernment which had described our national condition as perilous, as bringing forbodings into the minds of masters of finance, in the words of the present Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin), as making even rich men uail with fear, as indeed making patriotic men dread the day when, because of our obligations to the Republic to the south, we would drift into annexation.
Again, X say, Mr. Speaker, that there was not a single thing said by the leader of the Opposition which was not literally and accurately true.
Why, we had another issue, Sir. The leader of the Opposition stated that as a result of this sales tax everybody that bought the necessities of life contributed to that tax, and a list of food stuffs and other things was read by the Minister of Finance as showing that there are exemptions to that tax and therefore everybody did not pay. He put emphasis upon-the "all" and upon the "everybody". The emphasis is put entirely in the wrong place. The leader of the Opposition did not say that the purchase of every necessity, of all necessities, was accompanied by the tax-not at all. We have practically exempted food stuffs, food in its raw condition, products of the mine, and products of the forest. I wonder if the minister will say now that a pair of boots is not a necessity of life.


Mr. FIELDING:: Does my hon. friend wish me to answer?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend thought it was a necessity of life why did he not include it in his list of exemptions?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am very much gratified at the answer. We have never pretended that all the necessities of life were

exempt from that tax, we knew they were not. We were honest about it-they are not exempt. What we did do was to exempt the articles of primary production. We were not exempting manufactured articles, we were not exempting the articles which had been advanced to a high state of manufacture and value, whether it be food, whether it be clothing, whether it be anything else.
I would like to put another question to my hon. friend. He evidently has another idea of the sales tax. His idea evidently is that the necessities of life are exempt. He added somewhat to those necessities of life-not very much, and they were never described as (he necessities of life but he added somewhat to them. If he considers boots as necessities of life why did he not exempt them? I think, perhaps that question also deserves an answer. However, I will not press it. The thing is so perfectly ridiculous. The leader of the Opposition did not say that all the necessities of life are subject to a tax, but he did say that those who bought them paid a tax; and in this climate of ours are not boots, clothing and the like, necessities of life? I am inclined to think that what the Minister of Finance said as to my leader, in connection with some of his statements, should be applied here: I fancy he was so anxious to get his message to the Progressives, so anxious to sound that note of warning, so anxious to get up some avenue which would entirely disassociate him and his party from this iniquitous group here, that after all he did not waste very much time considering just exactly what was being said.
Another thing. The Minister of Finance talked about the tremendous additions to our New York indebtedness. I agree with some of the things my hon. friend said. I agree with him that we cannot do everything ourselves, I agree with him that sometimes we have to go out of the country in order to meet our demand. Yet I think, again, that he will agree with me that to the greatest possible extent practicable Canada's loans ought to be held in Canada. But to return for one minute to the tremendous burden of this country's obligations in the New York market. My hon. friend last year brought down the public accounts and I am going to quote from appendix No. 3, on page 56 of that blue book, and I am going to give the House the position of our New York loans at that time. We had two different sets of loans in New York then-I am speaking of this country's obligations and our own loans. The first are loans bearing 5 per cent, and the second loans bearing 5J per cent issued at a time when money was dear. We had, roughly

The Address-Sir Henry Drayton
speaking, I do not -give the old amounts, 50 millions on the New York market of 5 per cent money; we had 60 millions on the New York market of 5i per cent money; we had :n all 110 millions of direct obligations on the New York market. That is the showing made by the Public Accounts for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1922. Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly wonderful, absolutely remarkable, to see the Minister of Justice sitting there calm and composed to-day. Where is that dread of annexation that possessed him? The rich are no longer quaking. Patriotic men now are sleeping. The extraordinary thing about it is that the Minister of Justice sits there, calm, quiet and undisturbed, although in the short time of one year there has been a direct increase of Canada's obligations in the New York markets of 90 per cent.
Well, there was another thing said, and that is what my right hon. leader stated about the debt. These figures are true; they are the government's figures, they are the exact figures and, therefore, they are true, so far as we know. We accept government figures, but while that is so, the hon.Minister of Finance says, "Oh, if it had not been for these awful railways we would have had a surplus of thirty to forty million dollars". I think, to be frank, he would have had more than that. I am amazed that he is not going to have a very much larger surplus. What was the taxation in the past compared with the taxation to-day? We have had government newspapers talking about the wonderful way in which revenues are kept up. Well, they have been kept up. Where has the money gone? In the last year which has just closed, in which we had very marked deflation, a year of tumbling prices and restricted credits, we nevertheless had a surplus, as reported by my hon. friend in the same accounts of 1922, of thirty-four and a half million dollars, without asking all the people of the country to lick stamps pretty nearly every time they turned around. We had a thirty-four and a half million dollar surplus without the 50 per cent increase in the sales tax. I am amazed that my hon. friend does not give a very much larger figure than the one he has given. Let us go back and take my hon. friend's basis which he says will give him a surplus of from thirty to forty million. On the same basis in the year 1919, I learn from the accounts, there was a surplus of eighty million dollars, at a time when we were attacked right and left by gentlemen now sitting on the other side of the House who at that time were on this side. The figures that year showed a surplus of eighty million dollars. In the year 1920, on the
same basis, the surplus was forty-five million, nine hundred thousand, in the year 1921 the surplus was fifty-eight million, and I have already given you the surplus of 1922 on the same basis, which was thirty-four and a half million.
Then I take another statement that my hon. friend has made. Of course there is an addition to the debt-no getting away from that. But my hon. friend asks: "What is that compared to your additions to the debt?" I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if really at the present time it would not have been somewhat better ; f tl.o nrm-rmrt.isflTi attitude of the leader of
the Opposition in his address could not have been maintained. Is it really a question of what past deficits were? Is it really a question as to how the money was spent in the past, here, there and everywhere? Is the wrong of to-day right because we had a wrong last year or the year before? Would it not have been better, if recognizing the condition of affairs, recognizing the condition of the country, we were at liberty to forget all party differences, forgetting what has been done in the past and addressing ourselves to a really wise consideration as to how matters to-day can be mended. But, as I said these remarks call for replies. My hon. friend said "why look at the increase in the debt of 1921 and the increase in the debt of 1922." Well, of course, there were increases then; there were very heavy increases. There was not so much said about the size of those increases then as is said now.
But there is another story. Let us again see what is troubling my hon. friend to-day. It is the railways. Why he thinks he may have to spend as much as sixty-seven millions on the railways this year. Well, he has the railways to-day-lines that are functioning. He has them in such a condition that trains stay on the track. He has the deferred maintenance all caught up. He no longer has to think about the rehabilitation of lines of rusty metal. Something has been said to-day about equipment. Why, in the old days when we took those lines over there was every need for equipment. The locomotives were not there to any great extent and the freight cars were practically not there at all. While it is perfectly true that hon. members can in any country-I do not care how big the supply of cars is-at certain times find a car shortage, it is also true that in this very year there were locomotives greased up and laid aside, and cars parked by the hundreds simply because there was no work for them.
If equipment is to be bought to-day, it is nothing compared to the necessities for equipt	COMMONS
The Address-Sir Henry Drayton
ment in the days that have gone by. Why, when we took that road over, even taking one of the best lines, say the line between Toronto and Ottawa, not only could the trains not make their time, but trains went oil the track. I myself have been in a wreck on that line. There was an immense amount of work to do. The line practically had to be rebuilt. What is it to-day? How is the bulk of the business between Toronto and Ottawa going to-day? Why, by the Canadian National road, by the best equipped, the safest and best graded line. That is where it is going, that work has been done, and that was carried out by this country, and earned out, through the operation of the public accounts.
Let us go back and see what was dope in those two years my hon. friend refers to. He points to an increase of debt in 1921 of ninety-two million and he is absolutely right. There was that increase, and it was a very very bad thing we had to have it- a most regrettable thing. But as against the 867,000,000 that my hon. friend now talks about, the special payments in that year, over and above consolidated fund expenditures, amounted to $150,000,000. Yet to-day, with taxation doubled and multiplied, there is difficulty with this $67,000,000. Next year the deficit was not quite so bad, but it was too bad altogether. The increase in debt in 1922 amounted to 881,000,000, and again, if we go back to my hon. friend'fe basis, dealing with these extraordinary payments, payments made that year, outside of consolidated fund expenditures, amounted t $115,000,000, as against the $67,000,000 that my hon. friend refers to. Why, Mr. Speaker, the work has largely been done. I am frankly surprised and amazed when I hear from my hon. friend that he expects, in the next year, that the railways will cost this country $67,000,000. They ought not to cost anything like that sum. I do not know what the present directors fear; I do not know what the present organization are afraid of, what benumbing influences they have been subjected to; but I know this, that with the improved facilities which they now have, with the business worked up as it has been, subject, of course, to this most regrettable delay that has taken place and the consequent disorganization, if the betterments shown in the past two years of $20,000,000 and $16,000,000 are maintained, if the ordinary downward curve is followed on deficits and if the ordinary upward curve of business is followed, we ought to have but very little deficit on the railways next year.
In order, however, that that may be the case, the railways must be left in the posi-TSir Henry Drayton.1
tion in which these hon. gentlemen got them. I am a great deal puzzled by this whole question. I want to believe that everyone is acting in good faith. I want to believe tha< we are getting to a point in Canada when party objects, party aims, party desires, are much smaller than the general weal of this country. I would love to be able to think that, but I confess I am wholly puzzled. On the one hand, Sir Henry Thornton tells us that politics has absolutely nothing to do with the line; that it is entirely free of political influence. He has made that statement often, and the newspapers describe how a* the minute of making this declaration, Sir Henry Thornton would stiffen his chin and stick out his chest. He has a first-rate stiff chin and a grand chest, but 1 hope they will stay stuck out as described. I am, however frankly puzzled. I was very much interested in a speech made by the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), when he was addressing, I think, the Ladies' Club in Montreal. Perhaps it was the Gentlemen's Club, but my recollection is that it was the Ladies' Club.


Mr. JACOBS:: The hon. member is quite right. It was the Ladies' Club.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He touched on the question of the railways and he was rather mournful about them; but one thing he said was: "We have a new board and they are all Grits." And he said: "If Grits cannot do the impossible, no one can." Of course, that is a difficult thing to do. The Prime Minister says: "These railways are going to be kept out of politics," and so as to keep them out of politics, so that there can never be any political discussion around the railway board, he sees to it that the directors are all Grits. Consequently, this puzzles me a little, but I am much more puzzled at what the Minister of Finance says. He says frankly: "The railways are in politics." If the idea be that the railways are to be in politics, had we not all better stop and do a little thinking? in the other board, they were not; there were Liberals and Conservatives on the other board.


Samuel William Jacobs: Unionists.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend may say "Unionists." Is there anything particularly bad in being a Unionist? But there certainly was no politics in the former administration.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hon. gentlemen laugh and hon. gentlemen sneer. It is very

The Address-Sir Henry Drayton
easy to do that. They have had a good opportunity of going over this whole question since they came into power. Mr. Speaker, do you think if anything wrong had been found out we would not have heard about it? There was no political interference, and I challenge any evidence apart from a laugh or sneer.


Mr. CANNON:: Sir Joseph Flavelle was no politician.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Address-Sir Henry Drayton
ment, $354,987 less; Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, $2,945,429 less, or a total reduction of $6,346,990. If you add that amount to what is being spent, the expenditure this year is actually greater than the expenditure last year, and that from a government pledged to practise economy. Why, their expenditure is greater than ours, and we were economizing in a very difficult time, when there was unemployment, when you had shrinking of values, and disarranged conditions. The government now face better conditions in some cases, because they have denuded the country of the people who were troubling them. They are not worried because of unemployment now, because having done nothing for the unemployed, because, drifting as Canada has drifted for a year without the slightest idea of any fixed fiscal policy, so that no one could come in here with clean, new money and start the wheels of progress, the government has got rid of our people. You hear it said of all parts of Canada, of the West, of the East, and of the Maritime provinces. They are driving them out of Prince Edward Island, too, as the hon. member told us who spoke from that province this afternoon. Yes, the government have less troubles, and yet they are not economizing. Mr. Speaker, something ought to be done.
I just want to give another figure. It is not simply the cost of government, but costs everywhere have gone up so much that somebody has got to start something, and I think we are the people who will have to start it. I want to refer for a moment to railway operations. The increase in the cost of carrying on business in Canada by the railways constitutes to-day a greater burden than was placed on the railways by the war. Hon. gentlemen talk an awful lot about the war debt, but do they realize that the gross earnings from operations from Canadian railways in 1917 were $310,000,000, and in 1921 $458,000,000, or an increase of $147,000,000-more than the whole of our war interest. You have that increase on a business less in amount than we had in 1917, and on the other hand you have operating expenses growing up in a far greater degree. The increase in operating expenses is 89 per cent, as against 32 per cent gross earnings from operations.
Something, Mr. Speaker, certainly is necessary, and the thing that is necessary is economy, and we cannot too much stress it. So far as I am concerned, I propose to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw). It is at least one thing: it is a clear, direct call for economy. I am forced to vote for it after hearing the

speech of the hon. Minister of Finance, who assures us that increases in the public debt are apt to be necessary. He thought so differently a year ago when he brought down his budget. Then he was not only going to stop deficits, but start doing something towards reducing the war debt. That is why we are licking so many stamps. That is why they put on the luxury tax, and why to-day we are being taxed in every conceivable way we can be taxed and still allow things to carry on. .Notwithstanding all that taxation, he says the debt must go up. Under these circumstances I am forced to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary West. At the same time I intend to vote against the main amendment. Sir, we have too much unemployment, we have too much de-population to-day. I am reminded of the appeal sent out only two weeks ago by the Department of Agriculture in connection with the dairying business, in which it was pointed out that there were only two markets and that the real market for the whole of that industry was the home market, and it is shrinking, shrinkipg sadly. Mr. Speaker, we can stand no further shrinkage. We vote against the main amendment.


Mr. W. G. RAYMOND (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, in order that I might not appear to be transgressing one of the rules of the House, I might perhaps be permitted to say that through the kindness and courtesy of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), who has exchanged places with me, I am not in the place I previously occupied.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to the wide range the debate has taken, and the many opinions that have been expressed by the various members-representing a territory stretching all the way from the Yukon to the Atlantic coast-as they have spoken, and I must say it has been very interesting to note the various views that have been given expression to. With the congratulations that have been extended to members entering the ' House for the first time, I would like to associate myself as well as with the compliments that have been passed, which I do not consider necessary to repeat at this time.
I -was very much pleased to hear one hon. gentleman opposite in particular last night. He was giving us a very interesting story of a sale that took place in the West in which two teams of horses-such horses as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) would consider fine, I understand-sold for the sum of $35, and one second hand wagon sold for $90. I expected to hear that gentleman say

The Address-Mr. Raymond
that the wagon in question was made in Brantford because, Mr. Speaker, in Brantford are made the most durable farm wagons that are produced in this country. I do not think that there is a wagon of any other manufacture that could be used in the manner described and then be sold second hand for $90. I felt it was a compliment to my constituency, and I was glad to hear the hon. gentleman make the allusion. But I would have liked him to have gone on and stated the origin of the wagon to which he referred. With reference to the price of the horses he later answered his own question. He stated that only $35 could be realized, as I understood it, for two teams of good draught horses-good young horses-and a little later he said that they had to pay 5 cents here for apples that were much cheaper in the Annapolis valley. Now if he had taken the horses in question to the market where they were in demand, he would have obtained a better price for them, or if he had gone to the place where the! apples were produced he would have got the apples cheap, at the price at which they are grown in Nova Scotia.
I think that the mistake that - has been made, perhaps, in the minds of some of the hon. gentlemen opposite is in painting the part of Canada from which they come-that is the three prairie provinces-in too dark, too gloomy, too unattractive colors. Those of us who have not had the pleasure of visiting that part of the country, and have to judge of it only by their description, would not, I think, form a very pleasurable picture of it or of its attractions. In fact, if we compare that description with the one that was given of the Yukon we find the latter of an altogether different character. Although we were told that the temperature was sometimes minus 60, yet the whole tenor of the address of the gentleman from that part of Canada was cheerful and optimistic, as compared with the utterances of those who live in the more fertile parts of the prairie provinces. I should like a more cheerful spirit inculcated by those who wish to see the country filled up with immigrants.
I	must congratulate the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) on the fact that he has been elected to the leadership of the Progressive party. During the time he has been in this House I feel sure that hon. gentleman has received the confidence, and has justly earned it of every member in the Chamber. He certainly has the universal respect of this House, and I am sure will always

enjoy the respect of gentlemen on this side. But there is one little suggestion that I would make, if I may, to that hon. gentleman. In his criticism of the Speech from the Throne he alluded to the omissions from it, and said it was notable for what it did not contain, and I observe that many of those who saw fit to criticise the Speech took the same ground. While I have not examined the Hansards extending back to confederation I believe, and I am assured upon the best authority, that there have beetn very few Speeches from the Throne since that time of which exactly the same remark has not been made-that they are very notable for the omissions from them rather than for what they contain. It is a remark that is hoary in its age, but I do not know that it would indicate any particular originality in the gentleman who makes it.
Then when the hon. member went on to express condemnation, because there is no allusion in the Speech to a still further reduction of the tariff, and expressed the desire of his party that there should be a still further reduction of the tariff, I would like to say this: I am, of course, but a new man in this House, and I can only judge of things as they appear to me, but it does seem to me that when the hon. member was elevated to the leadership of the Progressive party that elevation brought certain responsibilities with it that do not belong altogether to the position of a private member of the House. I mean in this way, Sir, that when he undertook to say that a certain section of the revenue of this country, amounting to $88,000,000, should be removed it was his place, as a statesman, to suggest to the Finance Minister some way in which that loss of revenue could be made up. But there was no suggestion as to what should take the place of those taxes that would be taken off by removing the tariff; and we know, as everybody knows-I believe the gentleman who has just taken his seat, the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) knows-that the great difficulty of government to-day is to raise enough revenue to meet the requirements of the country-that instead of removing taxes-because the tariff is, of course, a tax-the difficulty is to raise enough money to meet the national requirements. They are large; we have heard them explained from all points of view. It is difficult to take them up now without consuming a great deal of time; but we have heard the various speakers allude to the existing charges, the interest on the debt, and the necessity of raising more money; and therefore it seems to me that

The Address-Mr. Raymond

when it is suggested that a certain amount of money now raised through the tariff should be taken from the revenues of the country, it would be only fair and reasonable to expect a man, who is looking at the country's interests, to specify in what manner that money could be replaced in the public exchequer. It was a matter of regret to me that the leader of the Progressive party did not in his very able address indicate how that was to be done.
There is another matter to which I wish to allude. The hon. gentleman who introduced the amendment, which we understand is to be supported largely by the Progressive party, took, it seems to me a rather peculiar stand. When an amendment is introduced into this House by any serious minded member, it is surely introduced in the hope that it will carry. If this amendment carries the effect of it, I think, must be apparent to hon. members opposite. I do not know that the question is as to whether or not there is an exact precedent for it, but the amendment, if carried, would be equivalent to an expression of want of confidence in the government, and that would mean immediate dissolution. ' Hon. members must know that this is so, and I have no doubt they will endorse my statement. In that case, we would find no fault whatever with them. But this is the position in which those who support the amendment, whoever they may be, would find themselves; they would force the government to the country before they had time to introduce a redistribution bill. I presume they have their reasons for such a desire, although they have not explained them. I presume they could explain if necessary. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, they would have to explain to those people who expect, and who are, by constitutional right entitled to greater representation when the redistribution bill is passed, and they would have to justify themselves in causing a dissolution and a general election before a redistribution bill had been passed. It seems to me that is very plain. Members from certain provinces expect additional representation. Their increase in population entitles them to it. There would have to be an adjustment of the representation in the cities. The representation of the city of Toronto, for instance, is based, I think, on a population of some 300,000. In the redistribution the representation would have to be based on a population, I think, of 507,000. Manitoba. I understand, would be entitled to an increase of some three or four members, and the province of Saskatchewan would have an increase of five members. How would these

hon. members answer the people who live in the cities and provinces if they brought about a general election, which postponed for five years the redistribution which would give them the additional representation to which they would be entitled?


Arthur Meighen: Does it not follow from the hon. member's reasoning that as long as the government neglects to pass a redistribution bill nobody should vote against it?


William Gawtress Raymond: If I understand the hon. member aright, he stated that as long as the government failed to pass a redistribution bill nobody should vote against them? The answer is that the government has not had an opportunity to pass a redistribution bill, and you would have an opportunity to vote against them after they had passed redistribution.
I think that it is worth while to bring this matter to the attention of hon. members opposite and the members of the House generally. It does not seem to me that it is a contentious question particularly. I think it is a very plain question. I do not observe any legal quibbles or anything of that kind in it. It is a plain proposition; it is common sense and good judgment. If an election is brought on before the redistribution bill is passed, certain parts of the country will not be represented, and it will not be the government that will be responsible, but it will be the hon. members who forced the government to resign and go out of office. That is plain enough.
Another matter has been alluded to in various ways, and the omission of it from the Speech from the Throne was referred to by more than one hon. member who spoke on the other side of the House. No particular reference was made in the Speech from the Throne to the Near East troubles which occurred last September. The discussion on this question in the House and in the press rather tends to show what a variety of views may be taken of it. Some made it a ground of attack upon the government. The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) in referring to it, described himself as a patriot and a lover of peace, and at the same time wished to place himself with those who would condemn the government because they avoided war. It was a position which was hard for me to follow, as were other things in the hon. member's address. I thought, however, that it was very difficult to see how a man could be a lover of peace, a conscientious man and a patriot, and at the same time find fault because war had been avoided by the government of the country in con-



S, 1923

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Raymond
nection with the embroglio which occurred last September. He said, as I understood it, that parliament should have been assembled. Now, I do not know that it is advisable on every such occasion that parliament should be assembled. It would rather tend to indicate that we had not the confidence in the administration that we should have. Nothing has transpired since to show that it was necessary that parliament should have been called together, and when he or some other member who criticised the government action, said that the only one that was consulted then was the then leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Crerar) and suggested that the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) should have been consulted, it seemed to me that the member's mind was going back to 1914. I think hon. members might well go back and consider who was consulted then. Was the opposition at that time taken into the confidence of the government?
Arthur Meighen: Yes, they were.


William Gawtress Raymond: The right hon. member says, " yes, they were," but if they were, why was it necessary afterwards to form a Union government? If the opposition had at that time been taken into the confidence of the government, we would have had a united government, and never would have had any cause afterwards to remedy the mistake, or to pretend to remedy it by forming what was called the Union government, but it will forever be looked upon by future historians as the greatest mistake that ever happened in the history of Canada, that party politics-I can call it nothing else-prevailed to such an extent that Sir Wilfrid Lautier and the Liberal party were not taken into the confidence of the then government of Canada, in order that they might turn their attention to winning the war. To me that is and always will be one of the most regrettable incidents in our history, and I think there is no man who remembers those times who will not say that the action of the then government was strongly coloured by that partisan spirit that hon. gentlemen have this afternoon deplored, or pretended to deplore from their seats in parliament.
But to go back to the incident of last September, I understand-and I think I do -the events that happened then and their sequence, I will endeavour to describe them without meandering through the circuitous paths of diplomatic language or crossing the plain highway of thought. I would ask the House to consider carefully this circumstance, because it was the actual circumstance by
iii
which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had to be governed at the time. A telegram came, which was as a bolt out of the blue, asking the extent to which Canada was prepared to back up the British policy in the Near East. I think hon. members will agree with me so far that that is what happened. The Prime Minister had to consider from whom that telegram came. It did not come from the coolest-headed member of the British government; it came from one who has been considered rather impetuous, a very Hotspur, one who said, if you remember, Sir, at the beginning of the war, that he would send the British navy to dig the Germans out of their holes like rats if their fleet stayed in port. That was a bold statement ; but it was one at which the First Sea Lord and the men of the Admiralty smiled with their tongues in their cheeks. It was fiom a man of that impetuous disposition that this telegram came, and the reply of the Prime Minister, when he asked for further information that he might be informed more distinctly what the policy of Great Britain was in the Near East with regard to Turkey, sprinkled upon the ardour of the one who had sent the message those few cold drops of modesty that were necessaiy to cause a more deliberate consideration.
If as the event proved, it became unnecessary either that Canada should signify her distinct acquiescence in the policy of Great Britain with regard to Turkey, or state whether she would send a contingent to assist in the execution of the British plans in the Near East, it would have been absurd or ridiculous for the Prime Minister or the government to commit this country to anything of the kind. We should know exactly what we are going to do before we undertake to support any commitment. Some say: "Well, Australia did this, and New Zealand did it." I do not want the action or the attitude or the mind of Australia or New Zealand ever to influence the mind of Canada with regard to her destiny. We have a right to say that, amongst the various dominion-of the Empire, this Dominion, which was the one which solved the problem of Imperial government and made it possible for those other dominions to come into existence and exist as a commonwealth of nations, is not called upon to heed to their actions. Each one must act for itself, and it is for Canada to take her own place, her own part, to look at her own future and destiny in the decisions which she makes.
Some say: "It should have been done foi the moral effect." Mark the use of the word "moral"- the moral effect. If bluffing
The Address-Mr. Raymond

is a moral game, then it would be done for the moral effect. In effect, to back up a bluff, was what Canada was asked to do, and I should be very sorry if it ever was in the history or nature of this people to become bluffers, to become rattlers of the sabre, and in a great crisis to take that kind of attitude that would be brow-beating and boastful. I would rather that Canada were a nation that does not say too much, but that acts right up to what it says and does it. That is what the people of the nation after which we claim to model our institutions, to a great extent are n.ted for-not saying more than tiiey will do, but thoroughly doing that which t!, y say. That was the attitude of the Prime Minister of this country at that time, and we have every reason to be proud of him that he acted in the good old traditional way in which we would expect a Canadian government to act. It is not always hasty action, the showing of alacrity, that is the wisest course. There is an expression that came to me often in 1914 when I thought of the great crisis and how much was in the balance, when I thought how deliberately Britain took the stand that she did. I would apply those same words to Canada in September last and through her future history, and I hope it will always be the idea that will govern her statesmen. The words are these:
Rightly to be great
Is not to stir without great argument,
But greatly to find quarrel in a straw
When honour's at the stake.
Was honour at the stake? Our government did not stir without great argument. They did not see the argument in the matter, and they did not stir; but had honour been at stake, I feel sure they would have taken those steps that would have been necessary to protect the honour of this country. No, there was a reversal of policy. Almost immediately that those few drops of cold modesty were sprinkled upon the ardour of the British ministers, their policy was reversed, and newspapers came out in England applauding Canada for the stand she had taken. Resolutions were passed by city councils and other bodies, congratulating this Dominion that she was able to take the wise stand that she did. The election came off, and hon. gentlemen know what happened. That policy was reversed by a majority in that election, and that showed that the people did not back up the gentleman who was then Prime Minister of England, nor the gentleman who sent the message.
When the gentleman who sent the message, who was known, I believe, as I said, as a

Hotspur, to be of an impetuous nature, and who wished to play this game of bluff in the East, went north to his constituents in Scotland, why, Sir, he was beaten. The people showed him that they did not approve his policy.


An hon. MEMBER:: By a prohibitionist.


William Gawtress Raymond: That is just what I was going to say. It is bad enough to be beaten at any time; but when hon. members consider the bitter irony of the position of being beaten in Scotland by a prohibitionist, they will realise the strength of feeling that was in the hearts of those voters must have been much more than usual. I consider the fact that these incidents were not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne was rather a good thing than a bad one. Why should these incidents have been mentioned in the Speech from the Throne? If you are going across the Atlantic and you pass a dangerous rock or reef, and if the captain or the pilot were to point it out to you and say: "We passed that rock safely," you would think he was looking for credit for passing it. Had this matter been mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, we would have had the criticism that the government was looking for credit for having saved the country from the dire calamity of war, the most dire calamity that could have befallen it. The government did not mention it in the Speech from the Throne, not desiring to have that criticism, and hence its absence is commented upon. I think it is a good thing that no reference is made to it. It was an event that sank deeply into the hearts of all the Canadian people. It was one of the events that will help to make and mould the public mind of this country, so that whenever the eventuality faces us, whether we shall be at war or at peace, those who are rulers at the time when this may happen, will consider the matter so carefully that they will not stir without great argument; that they will form their decision very resolutely, carefully and wisely; that they will count all the costs; that they will count the cost in money.
There is no one who will not admit that even the enormous sum that the war cost us was very little indeed to what it cost Canada in other respects. We cannot forget those graves which you, Mr. Speaker, went over to visit last summer; and he who would commit this country to war at any time must do it so that he can look the widow and the orphan in the face afterwards. The Prime Minister did not feel that he could do so last September,

The Address-Mr. Raymond
Find naturally, until the necessity should present itself with overwhelming force, he shrank from any appearance of committing this country to war, or anything of that kind. We have every reason to be proud of a government that could take such a step, and we hope that successive governments in Canada will always follow that example and avoid in the future as far as possible any entanglements in war.
Are we to be responsible for the foreign policy of Great Britain, whatever it may be, without knowing what it is, without its being clearly defined? Why, the question is not worthy of being discussed here. I do not think there is a man who would take that stand here. If so, we have gone back to a position of tutelage, as a colony, from which we thought we had escaped many years ago. As a part of the commonwealth of nations or, as you please, of the dominions that form the great British Empire, we in the future are going to take our own position on these matters. We are going to form our own opinions, and are not going to be bound to follow the foreign policy of Great Britain in every matter that would entangle us in war. Nor do I think that the statesmen of Great Britain feel that we should be so bound. They have no right to think for a moment that we should be bound by their foreign policy without some say in the matter. Of course, if the occasion arose again as it did in 1914, when the principles of liberty, and honour and justice were at stake, Canada could be depended upon to perceive her duty by instinct, as she did then. But let it be known to those who are ambitious to prosecute certain policies in certain parts of the world in which we ' are not interested, that we are not going to spend -either blood or money to further their designs. The revulsion of opinion showed after the event that the policy of Great Britain in regard to the East had not been of the wisest. When the military headquarters were at Chanak on the south side of the Dardanelles, had Canada sent any message, such as Australia despatched in regard to the situation that then existed, so as to strengthen the hands of those who were carrying on this bluff, and had there been the least conflict between those armies that were then face to face within gunshot distance of each other, had there been a few rifles discharged on that occasion, the consequences would have been inconceivable. We did not know for certainty then, but we know now, that at once Turkey would have plunged into war against us; and she would have been joined immediately by Russia, whose soviet government is as anxious to drive Britain out of those states as Britain is to drive Turkey out. Then that combination of Turkey and Russia would have been joined by Germany, who would be only too ready, if she had the allies, to take some military position that would enable her to repudiate all her enormous responsibilities of debt and reparations and depreciated currency. I am not overstating the case, for subsequent events have actually proved it; had the action of our Prime Minister at that moment been rash 11 p.m. there was a possibility that the world might have been plunged again into a war not much less serious than that of 1914. Now, I hope that the same temperate course will always be followed by the rulers of this country. It was Victor Hugo, I think, who said that moderation is the very breath of judgment; and I believe it is. And judgment is the quality that is required in all such cases.
I trust we shall always beware of entering into any quarrel, but that having entered it, we shall so play our part that the opponents may beware of us. But those who impute any lack of loyalty in the fact that we did not make some boastful or threatening declamations do not know the history of this country. Certainly, such a statement could never be made by an Englishman or by any other Briton, because he knows what Canada did in the late war, and he would never think that she lacked loyalty. I should be very sorry to think that such a statement could ever be made by a true Canadian, because the history of no country is more inspiring so far as the courage of its inhabitants is concerned. Canada's people have always shown themselves a brave people from the very earliest days of its history until the present time. Of course, we have had but few wars, but in her record Canada has never shirked her duty, and her sons could never be called cowards. There is not a more interesting event in modern history than the fact that after the Treaty of Paris in 1763, when this country was invaded from the south and no British troops were here to defend it, the French Canadians rose and repelled the invaders and saved the country to the British flag. In the war of 1812 all the inhabitants took an equal share; and in all succeeding struggles down to the last great war there has not been a time when Canada could be accused of failing to take her rightful place when occasion called. Anyone who suggested the contrary could not be either a true Briton or a true son of Canada. We have, I think,

The Address-Mr. McConica
* every reason to congratulate ourselves on the stand which the Prime Minister took, and which shows that he possesses that particular kind of wisdom that is required in meD who have the responsibility of governing a great country and of meeting issues that are fraught with terrible consequences.


Mr. T. H. McCONICA (Battleford):: Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to participate in this debate but circumstainces are such that I deem it my duty to myself, to my associates and to the members of the House to make some pronouncement as to where I stand. I should like to go to some extent into the discussion of the Speech from the Throne, but I have decided under the circumstances to forego that pleasure. I am admonished that it is the desire to conclude this debate to-night and I shall certainly not weary the House I want to congratulate the mover (Mr. Putnam) and the seconder (Mr. Rheaume) of the Address on the excellent speeches they delivered in discharging that duty. I concur in all that has been said in commendation including the speech that I was unable to understand when the seconder delivered it I do not think it is entirely my fault if I could not understand it. I spent long hours in my younger days trying to master the French language, and I failed. The trouble was not that I did not study with sufficient diligence, but that the Almighty did not seem to have ntended me for a Frenchman. But I would say to the hon. member that I have since given myself the pleasure of reading the translation of his able remarks, and I most heartily congratulate him.
I would say a word with regard to those who are not with us. I was well acquainted with but one of our late members, who have crossed the dark river, and I feel that I should say something as to him. I refer to the hon. member who formerly represented Lanark (Mr. Stewart). My acquaintance with him was all too brief. Soon after coming into the House I met him as an inexperienced, green member meets the experienced member who has reaped the reward of occupying a high position among those with whom he is associated, but I found him to be a considerate, kindly, courteous, polished gentleman. A gentleman in all that the term applies. I had the pleasure of being associated with him as a neighbour on this side of the chamber and in committee work for one session, and I came to esteem him as a statesman, careful, industrious, painstaking, honest, efficient and able-a most valuable member of this House. I esteemed him as a citizen worthy in every respect, patriotic, and devoted to

the best interests of his country. In a word, Mr. Speaker, such a gentleman, such a statesman and such a patriot as we may well honour, and therefore I desire to add my tribute to what has been so well expressed concerning him.
I would touch on one or two matters that have arisen in this debate. I am still from the West, Mr. Speaker, and I am still proud of the West. I am proud of her people, and I would admonish you that they are not a whining, complaining set of people out there; they are men with good, strong nerves, they are patriotic, they are intelligent, they are industrious, they are courageous, and they are bound to fight to the bitter end. This they are doing under most adverse circumstances. I can assure you. I am not here to retract anything that has been said as to the arduous conditions existing there Indeed, I am personally in such a position that I dare not attempt anything of the kind. We are not getting enough for our wheat; that is what is the matter with jus. Wheat is the thing we must depend on in that country. My esteemed friend, the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) says he can see that there is a relation between 75-cent wheat and an exhausted, bankrupt Europe with exchange demoralized and credit gone. We can all see that. But I want to remind the right hon. gentleman that Europe has bought all the wheat we could send them. There has been no trouble to find a market for our whear, over there. And they have paid for it. But if the papers are to be credited, the spread between what they pay to-day for our wheat and what we get for it is from 40 cents to 50 cents. more per bushel than it was before the war when conditions were normal, when money was plentiful, and when exchange was in their favour rather than otherwise.
Now, where is the trouble? There is a leak, somewhere. That is what is the matter with us. The two parties that are interested in this business, the producer and the consumer, are not receiving proper consideration. They are the real parties in interest, and the gap is too wide. We are informed by my esteemed friend from Saskatoon (Mr. Evans) that bread costs about a third less in London than it does in Saskatoon where we raise the wheat from which the bread is made. There is something wrong. I am not going to emphasize this now, although I should like to discuss it fully, and I may say to my hon. friends that I am still for the Wheat Board. We intend to have a board of that kind some of these days, but I won't weary the House

The Address-Mr. McConica
with that subject to-night. We must have some relief. We are promised in the Speech from the Throne that a committee will be appointed to investigate, with power to make recommendations. I have lived in Canada quite a considerable number of years, for fifteen years I have been trying to raise wheat, and I think I have put in about one-half of my spare time reading reports of investigations by committees, Mr. Speaker, and yet to-day we are still in worse shape , than we ever were in respect to the wheat business. We want investigation, but wo want something more.
But it is to the amendments that I desire to speak. We have offered an amendment through the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey), raising a question which we still think is vital to Canada. We attempted to raise that same question last year, and were ruled out.
I am not disposed to question that ruling. However, we had no opportunity of bringing that question to a discussion. Now it . is objected that we are attempting to embarrass the government by introducing the amendment at this juncture. Nothing of the kind is intended. Here is a proposition upon which the people of this country are divided, upon which the members of this House are divided. Now if we can bring that to a square-toed issue and draw that line, and this government is defeated, then I am willing to accept the consequences, Mr. Speaker. That is where I stand on that proposition. There are two sides to that question, and I am here to maintain the platform upon which I was elected and the principles in which I believe, namely, that the tariff should be reduced. I do not believe that this country can continue to exist and prosper half free trade and half high protection. The farmers must sell their products in the markets of the world in competition with the cheapest labour imaginable, they must encounter everything that tends to pull down their prices, including an exorbitant spread between them, the producers, and the consumers, and they, the producers, must buy what they require at high protective tariff prices. As I say, we are selling our wheat cheaper than we did before the war. And what are we getting? We are getting a dollar which is worth sixty cents,as compared with the dollar we got before the war. The reason for that to my mind is not that Europe cannot buy, for she is buying our wheat. I say we are here to support the amendment offered by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey). and we are ready to accept the consequences, even if the government should decide in the event of the amendment carrying, that it was
ready to retire from office. We do not want that, I will admit. Personally I do not want it. It would interfere with my plans to some extent, and I do not believe the country wants it. But I believe the country does want a pronouncement on this question, and if the majority of members in this parliament are in favour of a radical reduction in the tariff, and say so, I do not know but what we could form a government out of that element and run this country in pretty good shape. Therefore, I am going to support that amendment, ar.d I hope everyone here will.
We have another amendment, offered by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw). Ii presenting his amendment to the House, he was good enough to relieve the Progressives from all responsibility in connection with it. He defined his position in the House, which we have well understood, and with his definition and attitude we fully agree. It is perfectly proper that he should take the position he did; he was so elected. We would like to co-operate with him fully in such legislation as we think should be enacted, and in that respect we would like to co-operate with every member in this House. But we would like it understood that when he says it is not our amendment he is proposing, that that is the position exactly. We have a notion on our side that we will vote as we please on a thing of that kind. What is the amendment of the hon. gentleman? He 3ays:
The House views with alarm the substantial increase in the national debt.
In that sentiment I fully agree. I apprehend we are all of one mind upon that. We must view with alarm the fact that the national debt has been materially increased. It has been fashionable with me to view with alarm any increase in my own indebtedness or any indebtedness of the country, so I think we are all a unit on that. But is it the office of the Speech from the Throne to catalogue al! the things we view with alarm? If that is its function, I submit that the list is far too short. The hon. gentleman seems rather to insist on limiting it to one thing. If he would submit the list to my good friend for St. John (Mr. Baxter), who delivered that Jeremiad this afternoon, I am sure he would view with alarm conditions with regard to the potato growers, lumbermen, and everything else in that part of the country, and my hon. friend from Hants (Mr. Martell) could also add a lot of things that he views with alarm. My hon. friend from King's (Mr. Hughes) could also furnish him with a list. When the cars on his line, are hot they are too hot, and when they are cold they are too cold. If the hon.
The Address-Mr. McConica

gentleman really wants a substantial list of woes, let him consult his own associates from the province of Alberta. Why, they could furnish him with an unvarnished tale of woes that would make each individual hair stand up like the quills upon the fretful porcupine, and the pity of it is they would all be true. That is the tragedy of it. They would all be more real than the rather academic and thumb-worn general proposition which he has seen fit to include in his pronouncement. I think he would have been well advised to have left out that part of his amendment, because it is a proposition with which we all agree, and the list is not in any way complete when he limits it to the one thing. He says:
This House views with alarm the increase in the national debt and urges Your Excellency's advisers to exert every possible effort to economize in the expenditure and administration of government.
I agree with that. It is proper that we should have economy in the expenditure and administration of government; I think they mean about the same thing. But I want more economy than that. I want to see economy in the management of our railways, that great enterprise that has passed out of the hands of the government and in which the people of Canada are vitally interested. I want to see economy in the management of our harbour commissions and terminal elevators, and in all our great quasi-public institutions. I go further, I want to see economy in all the railways and among all the people of Canada. We must have economy everywhere. The trouble with that part of the amendment is that it does not go far enough. It is limited to the expenditure and administration of government. My friends to my right seem to think that is all we should eponomize on in this country, but I do not agree with that at all.
The amendment goes on to say that the purpose of this economy is "to lessen the burden of federal taxation." That is a very commendable thing to do, and I am in favour of it. I think we would be very wise indeed if we were to practise economy everywhere and lessen the burden of taxation. But I would go further than that. I would say that we should conserve our resources to such an extent that we can not only cut out this deficit but pay something on the national debt and carry on all the great public improvements that are needed. We might improve the harbour at St. John, for instance, and at Quebec and Montreal. We should complete the Hudson Bay railway. Let us economize to that end. We should send out feeders to our railroad lines on the prairies-

build branch lines. My good friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) some little time after the new Board of Railway Directors was appointed, and before they had had their first meeting, I think, certainly long before Sir Henry Thornton came from England, is reported to have said out in the West that they were going to build a lot of lines on the prairies. I do not know how he got his information. I thought Sir Henry Thornton was the man to make a statement of that kind. It embarrassed me a good deal, because I could not back it up. I did not know, and I did not know whether he knew or not. If he did, I would like to know how he found out, because I do not think Sir Henry Thornton knew as he had not then seen the railways.	.
But I want to see economy. It will assist us in that respect, it will assist us in the building of the terminal facilities out at Vancouver. I do not want to limit our economy to merely relieving the burdens of taxation. The qualifications that the hon. gentleman has put in here are words of limitation. They cut down the scope of our aims. If I had drawn that amendment I should have said, " I am in favour of economy," that is all. Economy is what we want-economy in administration and expenditure, economy in the operation of every public enterprise, and in our own private lives, and to the end that we may not only reduce the burdens of taxation but that we may build up this country to the future that certainly lies before us. When that is done we shall have the results which are spoken of here, and many more blessings will follow in its train. So I say this amendment does not commend itself very much to me.
Now what is the pronouncement of His Excellency? He says that the public accounts will be down soon, and declares that a strict economy in all public expenditures continues to be a necessity. Now, does not that cover the matter pretty thoroughly? Is not that just about as broad as you can make it? I ask the hon. gentlemen on my left, does that not mean a lot more than the statement of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw)? I think it does, and I submit, Mr, Speaker, that in the first place this amendment is not germane to' the amendment of the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) ; it does not touch a single thing that is contained in that amendment; it is not relevant in the most remote degree; and I do not quite understand how it was held to be in order. It is also a contraction of the declaration of His Excellency. The Governor General de-

The Address-Mr. Stewart {Leeds)
dares that economy in all public expenditures continues to be a necessity. That course we are admonished to follow, that rule is set up for us to adhere to. What more do we want? I apprehend it would hardly do for His Excellency to intrude into our private lives and tell us what we should do there; he was instructing parliament. My platform is a litle broader than his. I want economy to begin right in my own household, and then to permeate this whole great country of ours, permeate public and private bodies, permeate every enterprise and every interest; and when that time comes I believe that the. clouds that lower upon our horizon will be buried in the deep bosom of the ocean.
That is all I care to say, but I think I have made myself clear as to the position some of us occupy upon this matter. But we are not going to be unanimous-some voting one way and some voting another. I do not propose to cast a vote that will dissolve this House unless I mean it. Suppose a vote on the second amendment had the effect of dissolving parliament, as I infer it would from the excellent speech of the Minister of Finance, what does it mean? What would we be going to the country on? On something as to which we are all agreed-that- is that we want economy-and what good could result? I think the hon. gentleman would be well advised to withdraw his amendment.


Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize, as a comparatively new member, for intruding myself into this debate at this late hour. However, I shall endeavour to be brief, and I have to a large extent condensed what I proposed to say on this occasion. I feel some embarrassment in speaking as a new arrival and I entertain a greater sense of responsibility in discussing such matters as we are considering at this time.
I wish to join with the other speakers who have extended their congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address, and to associate myself with the congratulations that have been extended to the new leader of the Progressive party. I would also extend a warm word of welcome to the new members to this House, and express the hope that they will all take the active, intelligent interest in the proceedings which the older members have taken.
In the Speech, His Excellency has been pleased to refer to the pleasure which he has derived from his extended tour through Canada, and the many courtesies he has received at the hands of the Canadian people. We are very grateful indeed that Their Excellencies have taken such a kindly interest in our welfare, and that they are making themselves so familiar with all parts of the country. We would recognize in the office of the Governor General one of the bonds of Empire, and we are sure that so long as the occupants of that high office display the same intelligent, active interest in our affairs, as the present incumbent and his predecessors have done, they will continue to receive our expressions of appreciation and gratitude. We wish Lord and Lady Byng success and happiness in their continued visit with us.
Some extended reference was made by one hon. gentleman who has spoken to the Near East question. I rather thought that he gave it more attention, perhaps, than it deserved. Some of the cablegrams exchanged with the British government were read, and a summary of others given, by the Prime Minister. I think it is perfectly clear to all that the British Empire was not preparing for war, that the British authorities were endeavouring to bring about peace in the Near East. Yet the hon. gentleman to whom I have referred, approached this matter as if the British government were endeavouring to launch a new war. Quite the opposite was the intention.
I am sure nothing could have been more calculated to prevent war than the knowledge that all parts of the great Empire stood together united for the same purpose. I am sure that the answer which went from Canada did not make for peace, that it was very disappointing to the British authorities, and to many * people in Canada itself. I am likewise sure that a prompt cablegram assuring the Imperial authorities that we, with the other portions of the British dominions, were united with the Mother Country would have had a very good effect indeed. In short, a cablegram of that nature, promptly sent, would have been better than a contingent despatched months afterwards.
I think, Sir, it is very fortunate indeed for all concerned that this crisis has passed, but it is no more fortunate for anyone than for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the government of Jhis country.
The Speech from the Throne has referred to an increase in our commerce. It is true it is not very substantial, but it is a step in the right direction. It is encouraging and it is satisfactory to us on this side of the House to know that that increase in our commerce was accomplished without any change in the fiscal policies which had been pursued by the predecessors of this government.

The Address-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
There is a belated acknowledgement that our financial depression is due to financial conditions in Europe following the war. I am inclined to think, Mr. Speaker, that that explanation should have been given to this country much earlier by the Prime Minister and the members of this government, because I am sure that explanation was not made by him before the last election and I know that all of our troubles, financial, commercial and otherwise, were attributed to the alleged shortcomings of the then existing government.
Some reference has also been made to the trade conventions with France and Italy. It will take time to study these, and it will also take a considerable period of actual working to know whether the results will prove beneficial or otherwise. We will have to leave that to those who are more familiar with the trade question, and await results.
The removal of the cattle embargo or the alleged approaching reihoval of the cattle embargo, has also been referred to, because it does not yet appear that it has been entirely removed. In the province of Ontario we have been told that the credit for this action is due in a very large measure to the Minister of Agriculture for that province, the Hon. Manning Doherty, who, as we recall, went to the Mother Country and engaged in a campaign there in support of the removal of that embargo. He offended public sentiment in that country, received a well merited rebuke, and, I think, his activity retarded rather than helped the removal of the embargo. Yet in that province they are claiming for the provincial government [DOT] and for the Minister of Agriculture in that government a large measure of credit for this removal. There is, of course, a difference of opinion as to the value of the removal of this embargo. I think that it has been exaggerated. But again, we will have to await its complete removal, the regulations that follow, and the results also that will follow the removal of the embargo. The ultimate removal of the embargo will come in fulfilment of a promise secured by Sir Robert Borden at an Imperial Conference.
Some reference is also made to immigration, and upon this very important question I believe it is well understood that there are two views or two opinions fairly strongly held in this country, one in favour of practically unrestricted immigration, and another in favour of restricted immigration. As far as we can judge from the speeches of the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), and from the record, the government has not yet made up its mind upon this very important

matter. They have not yet adopted a policy, and we are without any knowledge as to what their intentions are in this respect. Speaking for myself, Mr. Speaker, I favour restricted immigration, restricted both as to quantity and as to quality-restricted as to quantity to the extent that we shall receive into Canada only those who can be well placed when they come here, only those who can come with advantage to themselves and with advantage to those who are already here, and restricted as to quality in that they shall be suitable for agriculture and for the industrial occupations which they may desire to pursue in this country. I submit that it is the duty of the government to bring down to this House and submit during the course of this session a well considered and well rounded policy upon this important matter. We have, I am afraid, been drifting, we have been losing time and losing opportunity, and immigrants have been going to other parts of the Empire, when they should have been coming to Canada. We should also, if possible, do something to prevent the emigration from this country which has been so pronounced in the last year.
I think it is only fair Mr. Speaker, that the government should have credit for having decided to make use of the Soldiers' Land Settlement organization in connection with the placing of immigrants in Canada. This excellent organization formed by the late government has rendered invaluable services to the returned soldier, and is, I believe, capable of equally valuable service to immigrants. I say the government are entitled to credit in this respect for their expressed intention of making use of this organization.
Then we are promised a revision of the Bank Act. It comes to us in the ordinary course. It is not a matter for which the government claims or, I think, is entitled to claim any credit. The act has in the main worked well, but changed conditions and certain occurrences of the last few years have demonstrated the necessity for some amendments to it. I wish to suggest an amendment which, I think, will give some relief to agriculture in this country. At the present time, as I understand the provisions of that act, a bank cannot lend upon the direct securities of farm products or chattels, it must be done in a roundabout way, and I know that in the province of Ontario there is a strong feeling on the part of those engaged in agriculture that too much of the funds that are received on deposit are not available for the immediate requirements of agriculture in Ontario. I would suggest that an amendment be made which would permit banks to loan to those

The Address-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
engaged in agriculture and others requiring advances the amounts which they require on the direct security of chattels. A simple form comprehensive in terms could easily be made a record, and when made of record would create a lien on the chattels. In this way there would be a fair, proper, and safe extension on banking accommodations, and agriculture would receive a stimulus. I submit this for the consideration of those who may have this matter in charge.
Another matter that is referred to in the Speech is an investigation into the alleged combine in connection with shipping rates. That brings to mind the allegation, particularly, of the member who now occupies the position of Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) in this government in the last election campaign, that combines were rampant, that they were numerous, and the Dominion Textiles Corporation was mentioned. It was pointed out that they were simply eating up the poor people of this country, and he promised that there would be investigations; that there would be prosecutions, and that this matter would be attended to at once. Since he has come into the House, we have not heard so much about the matter. We have not had any investigations; we have not had any prosecutions, and if these combines did exist, they have been allowed to continue and to flourish.
Redistribution is in order, and this suggests a subject of considerable difficulty and possibly of bitter strife. I hope this will not be necessary, and I do not think it is necessary if the government who will have the measure in charge, is prepared to follow well-established lines, to make a fair distribution, to adhere to county boundaries, and to appoint a committee of all parties represented in this House who will, upon these general principles, settle the details of this troublesome matter. I think it was one of the members of the Progressive party who suggested that we might have proportional representation in some of the cities. I do not know why this experiment should be wished upon cities and not upon other parts of the Dominion. I suggest that it might as well be tried out in Manitoba or Saskatchewan or Alberta; but I am not in favour of it at all. I think, when you consider the fact that only about sixty to seventy per cent of the electors vote in any general election, you will find, if you ask them to adopt a new and complicated system, that a smaller proportion of the vote will be cast. The results of this are uncertain; it leads to groups and to group government with all its compromises, with all its uncertainties, and
with the difficulty of fixing responsibility. What I think the Canadian people desire is that they shall, by a direct, simple and positive method, be able to cast their votes in favour of a government which they approve or against a government which they do not approve, and the present method is the best calculated to accomplish that result. I admit, of course, that there are anomalies and inconsistencies in connection with the present method. Sometimes the majority of the voters do not elect a majority of the members of this House. But then again, I think this is due to some faulty redistribution of the constituencies. This may be overcome, and there are anomalies and difficulties also in connection with the system that has been proposed. We had better, I submit, "bear those ills we have, than fly to others tha< we know not of." Therefore, I submit that proportional representation should not be adopted, either in the cities or in any other part of Canada at this time.
I was pleased with the address of the last speaker (Mr. McConica) who dealt with the subject of economy in such an illuminating manner. I was pleased to hear him say that he was prepared to go the whole way in connection with this very important matter; but really if he was prepared to go as far as he outlined, I could not see how he could be hurt very much by voting for the principle that is involved in the resolution of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr Shaw). I can see, however, how he might, fear, and his party might fear, that this would embarrass the government of the day, and of course they do not wish to do that.
I wish to refer to another statement that was made during the course of the debate. The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) moved the amendment, and I have before me Hansard at page 69 of which he is reported to have made this statement. He seemed to go a little bit out of his way, I thought, to make some references to the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) and to this party. In order that we may have exactly his words, I will read a sentence os two of Hansard. He said:
I could not help but think as the right hon. gentleman concluded his remarks that he himself was rapidly becoming Canadianised. But what of his immediate followers? I trust the Canadianisation of my right hon. friend will not lead to the fossilization of his immediate followers. Why this ominous silence? The country did not expect much from them, we know, but surely the country expects something. Well might an angel exclaim "Why seek ye the living amongst the dead?"
I wish to assure that hon. gentleman that this party is neither dead nor sleeping. I

The Address-Mr. McMaster
wish to tell him that it is resting and recuperating from a long period of arduous activity, both in peace and war, in the interest of the people of this country. I wish to point out to him that these professions of superior virtue from his following, these reflections that are, from time to time, made upon both the old parties, would come with better grace if my hon. friends had to their credit some slight achievement in the interest of Canada. After hearing the address of the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), I think my hon. friend will revise his opinion and come to the conclusion that this party is not dead after all. No, Mr. Speaker, we are not dead; we are not sleeping; we are observing everything that is happening in this House.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Keep on observing.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We are rejoicing in the vindication of the policy and the programme of our party that is coming through the merciless logic of events and by the action of our successors in office. I repeat that we are not dead, nor sleeping; and when the time comes-and it may not be very long- we shall be found ready and well equipped to resume the conduct of the complicated and difficult affairs of Canada, keeping her, with all her obligations, national and international, in a position of respect and responsibility in that great family of nations that go to make up the British Empire.


Mr. ANDREW McMASTER (Brome):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak in this debate; but the placing in the discussion of the two amendments, and my attitude to one of them, makes it, it seems to me, incumbent upon me to utter a few words. As regards the last amendment moved by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw) in favour of economy, I find these words in the Address itself:
A strict economy in all public expenditures continues to be a necessity in the existing financial situation.
These words being incorporated in the Address, I cannot see the raison d'etre or real necessity for the sub-amendment and therefore I will vote against it. As regards the amendment moved by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) I find myself obliged to take another position. I do so with considerable regret because I shall have to run counter, I am afraid, to the greater number, if not all, of the members of my own side of the House. Is there any objection to the material of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Springfield? The amendment merely deals with the question of the reduc-
tion of customs duty and the desirability of having a downward revision of the tariff at this time. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), in his instructive .and most able speech the other day, himself said:
The general sentiment contained in these two motions is largely of a sound, sane and sensible character.
With this certificate of character of the amendment given by the Minister of Finance himself, it is unnecessary, it seems to me, to labour the point and to insist upon the desirability of the amendment. The question which has been brought up by the Minister of Finance is the propriety of urging this resolution at the present time. I have taken some time in studying this question and I have come to a conclusion somewhat different from that arrived at by the minister. I advance my arguments with a certain amount of diffidence in view of the long experience and the great public services which the Minister of Finance has rendered to this country. The Minister of Finance takes the view that the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne and the debate connected with it are really a matter almost of form rather than a matter of real importance. "It is simply a resolution," he states, "politely acknowledging the speech which His Excellency has kindly addressed to the House and giving him the assurance that whatever matters are brought before us will receive our respectful consideration." That is quite accurate as a statement of form; I respectfully submit that it is not accurate as a statement of reality. In reality the Speech from the Throne does not emanate from the Governor General at all; it is merely put into his mouth by his advisers. The Speech from the Throne is the more or less sketchy pronouncement of the government as to their legislative programme for the session; and our discussion of it is not, I take it, merely a courteous interchange of compliments with the Governor General. It is a debate in which the mind of the nation is to be expressed, and I think that it is the more modem reality rather than what may have been and no doubt was in the past the fact. The question is to my mind an interesting one and I would refer the House to three authorities that I have before me. The first is Parliamentary Government in England by Todd, Vol. II. I find therein expressed the view which has been so well placed before the House by the Minister of Finance. On page 364 the author states:
Accordingly, it has gradually become the practice to refrain from moving an amendment to the Address in answer to the royal speech unless some great political objects were in view, and likely to be attained-

The Address-Mr. McMaster
Even under that interpretation of the situation, I take it that there is some great political object in view in the desire of a great number of the members of the House to have a downward revision of the tariff.
-or unless some assertion were made in the address to which the opposition found it impossible to assent.
And just while I am referring to this authority I should like to point out that amendments to the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne have been moved and been accepted by the government.
On January 16, 1840, the Duke of Wellington moved an amendment to the Lords' Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne wherein Her Majesty's approaching marriage with Prince Albert was announced, for the insertion of the word "Protestant" before the name of the Prince. Having shown that it was in conformity with precedent, the amendment was agreed to, notwithstanding the opposition of the Prime Minister. But the success of this amendment was attended with no political consequences, though the matter gave rise to much discussion, both in and out of Parliament.
I would next refer the House to a very much more modern .authority, Anson's Law and Custom of the Constitution. In Volume I on page 67 I read:
To this Address-
The Address we are now discussing-
-amendments may be moved, and thus the general policy of the government, as indicated by the Speech from the Throne, is brought under discussion.
This thought is more fully developed in another modern authority The Procedure of the House of Commons by Redlich, with an introduction by Sir Courtney Ilbert, who was one of the Clerks of the House of Commons at Westminster. At page 59 I read:
The King's Speech gives in broad outline the legislative programme of the session, comments upon the position of foreign affairs and the state of the Crown Colonies, and, in a special paragraph, of nearly invariable form, addressed to the Commons only, it promises an early submission of the estimates for the wants of the coming year. The course of the deliberations of Parliament is thus indicated, and they begin regularly with a debate upon the Speech and the Address in reply thereto. The general political character of the King's speech leads to the result
12 m. that the course of the debate upon it is untrammelled as to subject matter, a circumstance to which the modern adoption of the principle that general debates should be as much as possible avoided has given great importance. General criticism of the government from all imaginable points of view', demands for redress of grievances, the statement of aspirations and proposals of all kinds, are rendered possible. The whole policy of the country, domestic and foreign, is open to discussion. The form of procedure adopted is that, immediately upon the speech being communicated to the House by the Speaker, a motion for an Address in reply is proposed, by some member chosen beforehand, generally some young member on the government side, and seconded by another. Formerly the Address in reply followed closely the wording of the Speech, but in recent years it has become usual to frame it as a brief expression of the thanks of the House.
The further debate is carried on in the strict formal manner characteristic of English parliamentary procedure. Any body of political opinion represented in the House, any member who wishes thus early in the session to influence the Government's legislative programme at any point, or to call the attention of ministers or the public to any question, brings up what is desired in the form of an amendment to the address, proposing the addition of some words having reference to the question.	.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully submit that those are precisely the circumstances which confront us to-night. I take it that when this book of Todd's was written, some fifty years ago-the author's note to the introduction is dated Ottawa, February, 1869-it was considered proper even at that time for the government to accept an amendment. Surely when this custom has developed into the holding of a general debate and the making of proposals of all sorts, the government is not precluded from taking any of these suggestions which they may deem best and making them their own. That leads me to the conclusion that those of us who think it is proper to introduce this resolution at this time are not only following what, it seems to me, is indicated by common sense, but also is sanctioned by the best modern constitutional practice.
Why is it wiser to introduce this resolution now rather than during the budget debate? It would seem to me, and I submit it with a considerable degree of confidence, that the budget is reached as a rule somewhat late in the session and represents generally the final decision of the government as to the manner in which it proposes to raise money for the use of the state, and that when that moment has arrived it would require a considerable amount of grace and forbearance on the part of the government, after all their plans had been laid and arrangements made for the raising of money for national purposes, to revise their plans and accept suggestions coming from another quarter. Therefore it does seem to me that this is the time when we can hope by respectful representations to influence the government in taking the view of the matter which a number of men in this House do take.
I am very anxious that this should be done, for two reasons. First, because I think it is of primary necessity in the interests of the whole country that there should be a downward revision of the tariff. At this late hour I am not going into the reasons which lead me to that conclusion. They are precisely the same reasons which have led the Liberal party since 1878 to hold that lower tariffs were in the interest of Canada; the same reasons which led the Liberal party in the great con-

The Address-Mr. Neill
vention of 1893 to take that position before the country; the same reasons which led the Liberal party in 1919 to reaffirm those same principles; the same reasons which led the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) within the last few years to place on the pages of Hansard his reason for believing that the protective principle was not the proper principle on which to base the tariff laws of this country. That is one main reason. The other is this: I am afraid that if the government do not accept this proposal they lay themselves open to the charge which has already been made, that in refusing to put this proposal of tariff reduction in the Speech from the Throne, and in neglecting to make any firm statement that that is their idea, they will leave the door open for people to say that they have abandoned their trade principles. That, I think, would be an unfortunate thing for the Liberal party. That, of course, is something which I, as a humble member of that party, can do no more than respectfully urge my leaders to follow. But although I have no power more than any other member to influence them, I have the power to see that no one can throw that charge in the face of the member for Brome. I think at this time when parliamentary institutions, nay, representative government, are on trial, it is of the utmost importance that there should be no possibility in the public mind for even the suspicion of the thought that public men say one thing in opposition and do another when in power. I am making no charge that that is done or is being contemplated. I do say that the adoption of the suggestion which I make with all seriousness, with all respect, would obviate the very possibility of such a contingency.
Mr. Speaker, I know the hour is late. I have said what I have got to say on this subject. I commend it to the attention of the House and trust that those who have listened to me will be impressed with what I regard as the soundness of my argument.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will excuse my speaking from a seat that is not my own, but, owing to this bedroom drapery effect that has been wished upon us in our absence, we miserable members who are condemned to sit on the back benches are perpetually in a state where we are deprived of light-either the light of day or artificial light, and when we do wish to speak we have to emerge from our caverns and stand blinking in the light of day or artificial day. The same condition prevails with my hon. friends on the back benches opposite, and I think we will soon

qualify under the description contained in the lines of that favourite old hymn:
The race that long in darkness pined Have seen a glorious light.
While I am on the subject I also wish to enter a protest against the colour scheme of this arrangement. It is a well-known scientific fact nowadays that in cases of mental or nervous diseases and disorders the colour of the apartment has a good deal to do with the patient's condition. For instance, red irritates a man and blue has a soothing effect. I cannot conceive of any effect that perpetual association with this colour scheme will have on the unfortunate member except to lead him to commit suicide. I never saw a colour like it except in an undertaker's parlour. If the government find the percentage of suicides is greater on the back benches than on the front, they will know the cause.
Now, it is late, and my state of health prevents me dealing with the subject matter of the Speech from the Throne at length. I only wish to touch very briefly on the two amendments, but before I do so I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the Independent party in this House on the large and important accession to its numbers of late. I say to the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw) that he will find in that party great opportunities for preferment and promotion. The position of whip to that party is vacant to-day. It can be had at a word.	The position
of chairman of the caucus is also vacant and I would even dangle before him bright hopes of becoming leader of the party. No doubt at the first caucus that will be a subject for our most earnest consideration. I recall some years ago in British Columbia a similar condition occurred. There was a party there of two; I was not one of them. The party consisted of two Liberals, and a divergence of opinion arose between them as to who should be the leader. Unfortunately they brought their dirty linen to wash in the House, and it was described how they had squabbled as to who should be leader. One man said to the other, "Look here, Tom, the position of leader is one of some social standing, and you have to be able to wear a dress-coat and talk to the Lieutenant-Governor. I have a dress coat, and you know, Tom, you have not. Therefore, I think I should be the leader." The other man retorted, "I do not know about dress-coats or about the Lieutenant-Governor, but I can swing a better paint brush than you anyhow." They quarrelled so bitterly over the leadership that one of them became the

The Address-Mr. Neill
leader, and the other left the party and affiliated himself with the Conservatives, since when he has never been heard of politically. In view of his youth and Apollo-like figure, and the fact that my friend is a bachelor-I think he is; he looks like one-I am prepared to make this deal with him, for I am always ready to make a deal and to make a public one: I will give him the social element. He can be the leader at society functions. I will yield the party's dress suit if we find we have only one, to him on such occasions, if he will leave to me the more arduous but to me the more congenial task of carrying on the leadership in the House, and then we will have that most beautiful of things, peace and harmony in our young and vigorous party.
Coming to the amendments the one that will be taken first, I presume, has been well termed the economy amendment. I rather fail to understand why the government might not have accepted it. It is one of such a purely academic nature that nothing particular would happen if the government accepted it. It is true we want economy and thrift and honesty and virtue. These are all admirable qualities, and an academic recital of them would not have done the government any harm, and possibly would have pleased a certain number of members. However, I presume the government have a good precedent when they take the stand that it must be regarded as a vote of want of confidence. Before I pass from the subject of economy, I might mention that during the last recess I have been instrumental through representations to the government in having four official positions cut out in my district, and if I am left alone I will have some more cut out, in the direction of economy. These men have not been discharged, but their positions have been done away with, resulting in an aggregate saving of $4,000 a year, and I have only begun. I have saved the amount of my salary, and if the members of the Progressive party have done the same-perhaps they have, I do not deny it-the aggregate saving would be a quarter of a million dollars. I think that would be an evidence of a more genuine demand for economy than coming before this House with a brick loosely wrapped around with a resolution for economy in one hand, and a demand for the completion of the Hudson Bay railway in the other. Of course, I only take a small view of these things, but that is my idea of economy, putting it into practical effect as we go along.
As regards the other amendments, what is known as the free trade amendment, there is a form of free trade policy to which I would heartily subscribe as I heard it enunciated in the House the other day by my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bancroft), whom I have the honour to sit beside. In his excellent speech, short, but full of sound common sense and logic, he enunciated the tariff proposition that he was in favour of wiping out the present high tariff tax on woollens and boots and shoes, and like a true diplomat he stopped there. I am prepared to go with him any length along these lines. Like Agrippa, I was inclined to say:	Paul!
Paul! Almost thou persuadest me to be a Progressive. If he and his party had stopped there I would have been with him. to use a vernacular expression in the West, "till Hell froze over"; but it does occur to me that perchance the fact of my hon. friend and myself being perhaps fair-minded men, open to reason and argument, occupying the same desk for the last twelve months day by da3' and month by month, perhaps indulging in quite friendly arguments, has at last resulted in a sort of compromise frame of mind between us by which he was led to modify his earlier extreme political tariff views to a point where I could meet him half way. I submit, without any desire for recompense in my behalf, that idea to the government. It might be worked out along similar lines next session. We might find the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) associated with the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) and see what effect that would produce, or the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) with the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff), or even the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) with the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter), or the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) with the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth). Such an arrangement might produce a new and desirable frame of political mind in this House. At any rate, the idea is one that is possibly worthy of consideration by the government.
On the economy resolution, I propose to vote with the government, but with a good deal of reluctance, but on the other amendment, I shall certainly vote with the government with great cheerfulness, because I cannot come down here and stultify myself as regards the people who sent me here to look after their interests, and not play a political game. I have been here zealously in season, and, possibly some members of the government will say, out of season, clamouring at the
* The Address-Mr. Neill

door of tlie Finance Minister for protection for various infant industries in British Columbia, demanding from the Public Works department appropriations for my large district- and not only large, but growing. When you get a district with between 9,000 and 10,000 miles of waterfront and the people are active and progressive, the first thing they need is wharves, and wharves mean a large expenditure of public money. I can hardly come down here and ask for appropriations and tariff protection on the one hand, and then vote for the very opposite under these amendments. For that reason I feel justified in supporting the government. It is all too true, I am sorry to say, that I have not received anything like the measure of justice my district is entitled to. I say it with regret and reproach, and perhaps with the secret idea that the reason may be that too large concessions were being given to my friends to my left. Perhaps that is why British Columbia has had to go more or less hungry in these matters.
Let us glance for a moment into the future and see where the passage of this amendment would lead us. Suppose-W'hat shall I call it?-this unnatural union-between the party of high tariff on the one hand and low tariff on the other, political inexperience on the one hand, and political subtlety on the other-suppose it produces a majority against the government to-night, what will be the result? We know that under constitutional law the government will have the right to appeal to the country. That will mean loss-loss of money, expense and loss from the derangement of business, and as an hon gentleman sitting on this side of the House said, "It does not agree with my personal arrangements either ". But there are moments when we have to place the benefit of the country before your own particular desires. I feel that it is desirable here and now that the question should be settled, at least for two or three years to come, whether the minority in this House is going to dictate the tariff policy of this country. If it were any other party but the gentlemen to my left I might be inclined to say it was only a political gesture, that they do not intend this resolution to pass. But I know so well the character of the hon. member for Springfield who moved it, and many of the other gentlemen behind him, that I realize they are sincere. I say it with all sincerity myself, I believe they are sincere and absolutely prepared to take the consequences of their action, and therefore it is the more fitting, the more necessary, that we should have 
a show down to find out in this country just where we stand, at least for some years to come.
I admit that the amendment is modestly worded-that is to say it does not go the whole length to ask for free trade. I confess that it is different from what I think they had in mind; but when we come down to a question of this kind we have got to go beyond the present amendment, we have got to get down to the final analysis, and I think I am justified in saying that the fiscal policy of the Progressive party is one of absolute and unadulterated free trade. I do not think that can be gainsaid. You have only to look at the debates of last year to prove that. But you do not even need to do so-the speeches that have been made this evening bear me out when I say that in the final analysis the aim, the aspiration, the goal to which the Progressives are finally committed is free trade and absolute free trade. They have served notice on the government that if they wish to secure, or to have continued, the ever wavering and always uncertain support of the Progressive party, they must carry out the fiscal wishes not only of an extreme party but the fiscal wishes of the extreme members of that extreme party; and it is for the government and for the country to decide whether a party which, after all, numbers only 27 per cent of the total membership of this House is to dictate to the other 73 per cent. That is the question which presents itself to me in connection with this matter. If it was any other party I might use the term political " extortion " but I do not do so because I have too much respect for these gentlemen to my left. Many of them are men of my own kith and kin, we are of a common origin, and I share their views to a very large extent except on the question of the tariff. We have many views in common, and have learned our lessons in the bitter, grinding school of experience; that is why we have so much in common on almost every point of view with the exception of the tariff. Therefore I will not use the phrase "political extortion," but rather the milder term of "political extraction." But, Mr. Speaker, there are times when we weary even of the painless dentist.
Now I have spoken of the situation as it presents itself here to-day. A number of years ago-too many years ago I am afraid, at any rate a long time ago-in Australia in the state-it was before the period of the Commonwealth-of Victoria, of which Melbourne is the capital, there was an election where

The Address-Mr. Neill
the new premier of the day found himself in office with a very slim majority. He had been elected on a popular policy but the party which he opposed was strongly entrenched. Being in power he proceeded to carry out the policy on which he had been elected. The opposition were fully aware that it was dangerous and fatal for them to go to the country, but at the same time they proceeded to aggravate, and annoy, the new ministry, and to obstruct to the fullest measure of their ability. They would bring in amendments and the government would not know if they were going to be defeated or not. The opposition endeavoured in every way not only to embarrass the government in carrying out its policy, but at the same time by insidious propaganda to represent that the more or less vacillating conduct of the government was due not to their obstruction but to its inherent weakness. The premier was supposed to be a man lacking in political experience and they thought they could play that game with him. He went along with the policy he had outlined but one fine night the opposition found to their intense surprise that they had defeated the government. In six weeks, however, the administration was back in power again with a sufficient majority. The premier had arranged the thing with a couple of his followers, and, in slang parlance showed the opposition "where they were at," and it has been a lesson to me ever since.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alan Webster Neill: Had hon. gentlemen opposite allowed me to finish my remarks they would have heard me say it was a lesson to me not merely politically but in all phases of life, for I have ever found that a bold progressive policy always gets a man farther than one of hesitating for fear he gets his feet wet. I believe-and I believe it is as true here to-day as it was in Australia at that time-that this country wants a policy of moderate protection, a policy of protection to the young and struggling industries in all parts of the country, particularly of the West, also a tariff policy that will ease up and reduce the heavy protection now existing on the older and better established industries. I believe that if the government appealed to the country on such a policy they would get an ample and sufficient mandate to carry it out.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Welland (Mr. German). Had I voted I would have voted for the subamendment.


Mr. MacLAREN:: I was paired with the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Chew). Had I voted I would have voted for the subamendment.


Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry and Stormont) :: I was paired with the hon. 1 a.m. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Ouimet). Had I voted I I would have voted for the sub-amendment.


Mr. POWER:: I was paired with the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn). Had I voted I would have voted against the sub-amendment.


Arthur Meighen: I do not suppose it is really intended to go into committee tomorrow?


William Stevens Fielding: No, it is the usual formal motion made at the opening of the session.


Arthur Meighen: I merely call attention to the fact that it does not seem necessary to be made. It is not in order now, we are not under motions.


William Stevens Fielding: This motion is always made at the beginning of every session. It is merely a declaration on the part of the House that it will grant supply at a later time.
12i


Arthur Meighen: I just call attention to the fact that it should be made under motions. We are under the Orders of the Day now.


William Stevens Fielding: It always follows immediately after the adoption of the Address. My hon. friend will see that if he consults the record.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but under motions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance) it was ordered that the House resolve itself- into a committee to-morrow to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Mackenzie King moved the adjournment of the House.
Arthur Meighen: What will, be the business for Friday?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We propose to take up to-morrow government notices of motion if the House will give its consent.


Arthur Meighen: What government notices of motion?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Those that appear in to-day's order paper; According to Friday's procedure they will be the first on the Orders of the Day to-morrow, and they have been on the order paper now for some days. I think members are all familiar with them, and I should imagine would be ready to proceed.


Arthur Meighen: Is it intended to take up all the government notices of motion? There are six or seven of them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That will depend entirely upon the length of the debate in each case. I think some of them are noncontentious and will occupy but a short time.


Arthur Meighen: Will the Prime Minister give the order in which they will be taken.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suggest that they be taken in the order in whicl} they appear on the order paper.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 1.28 a.m. (Friday).
Vimy Ridge

Friday, February 9, 1923