1924-03-04

REPORTS AND PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Detailed statement of remissions of customs duties, excise taxes and sales taxes, year ended March 31, 1923-Hon. Mr. Copp.
Report of the Marine branch of the Department of Marine and Fisheries for the fiscal year 1922-23-Hon. Mr. Cardin.
Copy of Radiotelegraph Act and regulations issued thereunder-Hon. Mr. Cardin.
Report of the Fisheries branch of the Department of Marine and Fisheries-Hon. Mr. Cardin.
List of leases of Government wharves, piers, breakwaters for the year 1923-Hon. Mr. Cardin.
Summary of the harbour dues collected during the year' 1923-Flon. Mr. Cardin.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. F. HEALY (North Essex):: Is it the intention of the government to restrict the inquiry into the Home Bank affairs to the years mentioned in the order in council?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: In drafting the order in council to which the hon. gentleman refers, the government took cognizance of the petition which was presented to it by the depositors of the Home Bank. The subject matter that was referred to the commissioner is the statements that are set forth in the statement of the depositors of the Home Bank. The 44
government assumed that in referring to a commissioner allegations prepared and presented to the government by the depositors themselves, they were going as far, possibly as the depositors would think it necessary or advisable. Representations, however, have been made to the government that it might be advisable to extend the powers of the commissioner so as to include all the transactions of the Home Bank from the date mentioned down to the time of its failure, and the government intends to endow the commissioner with that power.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: The Prime Minister's
language leaves indefinite the date back to which the investigation is to go. Is the government not prepared to have the investigation go back to the issue of the charter and the reasons and justification therefor?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government is prepared to have the fullest possible investigation made, and if in the opinion of the commissioner it is advisable to go further than has been indicated, or if in the opinion of others it seems advisable so to do, the government will be prepared to take action accordingly in the public interest.


Arthur Meighen: I am prepared to give
my opinion now. I know no justification at all for limiting the investigation to special years. If a commission should be appointed to do this work, it should go back to the initial venture and have the public know all the facts.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope I made it clear that the only reason why the government made any mention whatever in the order in council of the particular years was that those are the years that are specified in the petition which the depositors presented to the government, and it was in referring that petition to the commissioner that the government had occasion to mention the years.


Arthur Meighen: The public has an interest in the matter as well as the depositors.


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto):: I
would like to draw the attention of the government to the statement made by the liquidator that the Home Bank never had a banker as its manager, and I think that fact constitutes a strong argument for the investi-' gation going back to the issue of the charter.


Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence):: That is what is being
done.
The Address-Mr. Forke



THE CIVIL SERVICE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary):: Is it the intention of the government to take any action at this session on the recommendation in the report of the Civil Service committee of last year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The report is a somewhat lengthy one. I may say that the government has had the report under consideration and some action will be taken on it; but I could not undertake to say at the moment to my hon. friend how far that will go.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. Kelly for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Monday, March 3.
Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, in commencing my remarks, I should like to extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Kelly) and the seconder (Mr. Lapierre) of the Address who spoke yesterday afternoon. I can congratulate the mover of the Address upon his eloquence and upon the lucidity and, on the whole, the able way in which he presented his statements. I am not, of course, acquainted with the remarks that the seconder made, but I have no doubt he filled his position just as ably and well. I can quite sympathise with a new speaker who first rises to address the House, because I can well recollect the first time I rose in this place to make a few remarks. I am free to confess that I have not yet got over the nervousness that possessed me then; and, while I do not know how long my tenure may be I am beginning to become just a little afraid that that feeling is going to stay with me. I am not at all afraid of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, nor am I afraid of gentlemen to my right, and I know I have a great many supporters behind me; nevertheless I feel a good deal of nervousness in getting up to make an address. However, I have always been treated with kindness and consideration and I have no doubt I shall receive the same considerate treatment during the short time I shall engage the attention of the House this afternoon.
I was very much pleased indeed to see that His Excellency in the Speech from the Throne tvas able to make the statement that there were signs of returning prosperity in

the affairs of our country. I doubt not that from a great many points of view this statement is true; and I am sure that every well-wisher of the country will concur in the statement I make now, that it is particularly pleasing that such should be the case at this time. I know very well that things are not as they ought to be, they are not as we would have them; but when we consider the number of Canadians who own Dominion bonds and who have savings bank deposits -which deposits have increased enormously in the last year or two-I think that we may infer from these facts, and from other conditions, that in some directions at any rate there is a returning prosperity. Unfortunately, however, this prosperity is in some respects sectional; it is evident only in some parts of the country. I am sorry to say that agriculture, the basic industry of the country, is not in a satisfactory condition. I am very well aware that world conditions have a good deal to do with the state of agriculture in Canada as well as in other countries at the present time. Nevertheless, I believe that there are certain conditions, certain disadvantages, under which agriculture is labouring to-day in this Dominion and which can be removed by proper legislation. Agriculture is perhaps in a different position from any other industry. It is our basic industry and its wellbeing affects every other calling, occupation and industry in the Dominion; and while, even with a depressed agricultural industry there may be a degree of prosperity in some particular places, in the long run the welfare and prosperity, or otherwise, of agriculture will react upon all these other occupations.
I have here a quotation which with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall read to the House. It is from the Montreal Gazette:
The greatest wheat crop in the history of the Dominion was produced last year. The wealth of Canada has been increased by this abundant harvest and a stimulus has been given to the revival of business. With all this, the producers in the western provinces are still dissatisfied; they are still reiterating the complaint that they are being unfairly treated, that they are compelled to buy in a dear market and sell in a cheap one. So far as the East is concerned, there is no disposition to accord the producers of the West anything less than fair treatment. The interests of the West are the interests of the Dominion.
I might add to that, that the interests of agriculture in every province of the Dominion are also the interests of the whole country. Let me read just another short extract, from an editorial article in the Montreal Daily Star.
Why do the farmers leave the West? The challenge of the West has got to be met. The immediate solvency of fills country can only be preserved by insuring

The Address-Mr. Forke
the agricultural prosperity of the West. We must make farming-grain-growing-pay in the West, and we must do it soon.
The foregoing is the language of two Montreal newspapers, and I am sure that farmers everywhere in this country will endorse it. There has been a vast amount of wealth produced in the three prairie provinces, and on the whole, throughout the Dominion, there has been prosperity, so far as production goes, for the agricultural communities. But in the case of agriculture, as in the case of every other business, the question to the man who produces is, not how much wealth he produces, but what are his net returns when he has balanced his books at the end of the year. And unfortunately, while we have had a vast stream of wealth pouring from the western prairies, it seems to me a tragedy that those who are engaged in that industry have not sufficient returns from their labours to make life comfortable or as it should be for those who produce that wealth. To make this position plain I might quote a few figures which were submitted in the Manitoba legislature by the premier of that province. Premier Bracken points out that a bushel of wheat to-day is in price only a little higher than it was in pre-war days. In 1914 you could purchase a gang plough for $84, whereas to-day it costs $153. A mower in 1914 cost $57; to-day it costs $93-as a matter of fact, I know it costs $100 at the present time. A waggon could be bought in 1914 for $111; to-day the price of a waggon is anywhere from $160 to $180. Three farm implements that could be purchased in 1914 for $253 today cost $415. Now, when -you realize that fact and remember that the price of a bushel of wheat is only just a little higher than it was a few years ago it does not require much-argument to show what position the farmer is in with respect to the raising of wheat. There are other figures too, which I might cite. In 1912, 10 fleeces from a sheep would purchase a suit of clothes; to-day it takes 31 fleeces to purchase a suit of the same quality. It is needless for me to elaborate along this line, because these figures show quite plainly just exactly the problems the farmers have to meet to-day in carrying on their industry.
We must look facts squarely in the face. I am not a pessimist; I am not going to preach blue ruin, nor do I believe that Canada is going to the dogs; I believe that there is a great future before this country and before agriculture in this country, and I hope that as the years go on we shall see agriculture in Canada occupying the place which it
deserves. If we reflect for a moment on world history we shall realize, I think, the fact that everywhere and at all times, in the case of every nation that has ever risen to prominence, whenever in a nation agriculture has begun to decay, the beginning of that nation's decay has occurred at the same time. Now, I have no idea that such a thing is likely to happen in this country. But if that be true of the nations as a whole, it is absolutely necessary that the agricultural industry in Canada should receive our very best attention.
Let me come now to the cost of doing business. I think the great complaint that wo hear at this time all over the Dominion is the high cost of production, the cost of doing business; and going from one calling to another, from one industry to another, you find always that the excuse advanced is that so much has to be charged because *he cost of doing business is so high. I would call attention to this fact. An industrial concern raises the price of its product to meet increase in costs; but the farmer to-day cannot say: I am going to charge more per bushel for my wheat because it costs me more to raise it than it did formerly. His product is sold upon the markets of the world, and consequently he has no control over its price. By reason of these conditions the farmer is at the present time at the bottom of the pyramid.
I wish I could convince everyone of the absolute necessity of placing this very important calling upon a solid basis. I know very well that, changed conditions require new methods to cope with them. We sometimes get a good deal of advice handed out to us as to how we ought to help ourselves, therefore it may be well for me to tell hon. members what some of my neighbours are doing in Manitoba. There we realize that wheat-raising is perhaps a little precarious; at the same time it must be remembered that next year and for a great many years to come wheat-raising will continue to be the greatest industry of the prairie provinces. Let me say that the return from our western wheat is gbing to be one of the principal factors in paying the public indebtedness of this country. Nevertheless we have to realize the danger of trusting entirely to a wheat crop, and our farmers are rapidly turning their attention to what is called "diversified" farming; it used to be called "mixed" farming. Last winter I had the privilege of going out to a great many meetings in Manitoba, and I may tell hon. members that politics was not so much discussed as what improvements we could make in conducting our
The Address

Mr. Forke

business so as to get better returns. I mention this so that the House may know that the farmers of the west are alive to the situation. To me one of the most hopeful signs was the entire absence of any division between town and country. We found boards of trade, agricultural societies, Canadian clubs and farmers meeting together in public in the towns and villages of Manitoba to consider our economic condition and the best methods to overcome our present difficulties.
Sometimes we are told that farmers should adopt business methods. I quite agree that they should; and if there is anything to be said in favour of income tax returns I think it is the good effect resulting from agriculturalists being obliged to sit down and figure out their operations to know exactly how they stand financially at the end of the year. The other day I received a letter from one of the most intelligent farmers in Manitoba, a man of ability and integrity, who has kept accurate accounts for the past twenty-two years. I have his figures in my room, and I once thought of putting them on Hansard, for I think they are well worth studying by the House. It is not a discouraging story, on the contrary it is a story of progress during many years, of increasing wealth in a moderate way, but during the last few years the results are very discouraging. However, I am free to .admit that on the whole the story is a very good advertisement for the province of Manitoba. I would add, Mr. Speaker, that this gentlemen has made only one great mistake in that long period-he accepted nomination at the last general election to support the party to my right.
In the Speech from the Throne the necessity of a reduction of taxation is emphasized. I think all of us are ready to say "Amen" to that statement. We all agree with it and will not in any way quarrel with the carrying out of such reduction. Sometimes we have been told that our criticism of the government last year was not severe enough. I hear that sometimes in the West. The Progressives are blamed now and then for having allowed such enormous estimates to go through without opposing them more vigorously than they did. I do not know whether anything more could have been done to reduce those estimates, but I do remember that many a speech was made from this quarter in which intimation was given to the ministers that we expected them to have [DOT]their estimates cut down very considerably this year. Now we are patiently waiting to see what they have done to cut down the expenses of carrying on the business of the 
country, in the practice of that economy which we have been promised.
The figures of the growing cost of government are so familiar to hon. members that I shall refrain from quoting them. While I do not wish to see anything done that will in any way impair the efficiency of government or in any way work injustice to anyone in connection with the enforcement of economies, I think it is perfectly evident to anyone who has given the most cursory examination to the facts of the case that something can be done and something should be done to cut down our national expenses by a very large amount. The country demands economy, but I do hope that the economy effected will be a wise economy. There is such a thing as economy that is really extravagance, and whatever work is necessary for productive enterprises I trust that that money will be found. Such works are in the nature of necessities so long as they are actual productive enterprises.
I should like to see the main estimates brought down as quickly as possible so that we may have time to study and discuss them at length. I have found from experience that it is sometimes very difficult to criticise a particular estimate through not being, familiar with the circumstances or not knowing the conditions under which the money will be expended. I rather suspect that when an estimate for a particular locality is before the House the member for the constituency in which the work is to be carried out, who knows the conditions and probably is best able to criticise the vote adversely, is not likely to take a very active part in so doing. We expect that the estimates will be cut very considerably this year to show that the business of the country is being carried on economically.
I think.it is a mistake that so many supplementary estimates should be brought down in the dying days of the session, and I for one am prepared to protest most vigorously against the practice. I remember on the very last day of last session, the last night in fact, a vast amount of money was voted that, I am sure, no hon. member, except perhaps those who were presenting the estimates, really understood or had time to consider. I have had more adverse criticism and more complaints from people who are paying attention to our proceedings of what happened the last night of last session than in regard to almost anything else that engaged our attention. So I hope that we shall not have a repetition of the bringing down of large supplementary estimates in the last moments

The Address-Mr. Forke
of the session. We can get on with our work at the beginning of the session. I am new in parliament, but it does seem strange to me that there should be so much time to spend during the early weeks and months in which we might' do business and that at the end of the session there is such a complete rush, the business being pushed through without due consideration. Let us get to work now. We are ready for our work; let us get on with the public business.
I want to say a few words in regard to the customs tariff-I suppose some hon. members have heard that phrase before; it has been a subject of endless controversy in this country and of a great deal of difference of opinion, and perhaps there is no subject that comes before the people upon which there is more confusion of thought. I do not intend to discuss it minutely or from any particular angle, but there are certain cardinal principles in connection with protection that I would just like to mention, and then pass on.
It is an accepted principle in everyday life that when you can do some particular kind of work well you make that your occupation; that is what you devote your attention to, and you are quite ready to exchange your work for that of some other man who is more interested in some other line of business. From such an exchange mutual benefit results. I submit that what is true of individuals can be equally time as between nation and nation, and that is one reason why I object to high protection as a barrier to the free interchange of goods between one country and another. Nearly four hundred million bushels of wheat will go from the West this year, most of it to find a market in the Old World. How is that wheat to be paid for? We are not going to buy anything from Europe; we are going to shut that market off; we are going to make ourselves everything that we need. Well, I would like to know what we are going to be paid with, what return we are going to get for that amount of wheat. The very a-b-c of economics will teach anyone that all trade is barter of goods, the exchange of commodities. Protection restricts markets. It cannot give employment; on the contrary, it shuts down employment. Reduce taxation by increasing the cost of living? Was any thing more absurd than the idea that by making goods dear you are going to reduce the cost of living? But why complain? Our exports last year amounted to the total of $1,028,319,123. Our imports were a great deal less-$903,-530,515. What do the worshippers at the shrine of protection want? That seems to me quite satisfactory as far as it goes. I read an
article in some magazine, written by the president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and one of the questions which he asks is, how can farming be made to pay ? Of course I was very anxious to hear what anyone had to say on that subject. Well, what was the sum and substance of the whole article? Increase the tariff I So simple-no trouble; just increase the tariff and nothing but unbounded prosperity will come to agriculture and to every other industry in this Dominion of Canada, Mr. Speaker, we have had sixty years of that doctrine and we are still wondering what is going to solve our problem.
I had some quotations here that I might have read, from some speeches by hon. members to my right, in regard to the free importation of certain implements, but I shall not read them, because I think those gentlemen when they made the statements to which I refer were perfectly sincere, and they have a perfect right to change their opinions whenever they wish to do so. I might have referred to a speech made by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) at Portage la Prairie, when he referred to the "ramparts of gold behind which the manufacturers were entrenched." But he also has every right to change his opinion if he wants to do so.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. gentleman will permit me, his geography is a little wrong; the speech was made in this House. At that time, however, the duty was very much higher, being under the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, but-*


Robert Forke: If the right hon. leader of the opposition would make a speech of that kind in the House. I wonder what he would have said at Portage la Prairie?
Now, I want to say a few words in connection with the stand that this group has always taken in regard to the tariff. People who are talking about the demands of the Progressive party always lay great emphasis upon articles used by the farmers. But I do not think the members on this side of the House are so much excited over farm implements; what they are interested in is the duties upon the necessities of life. We are not selfish; we want nothing but what is in the interests of this whole country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I have some sympathy for the Canadian manufacturers; I know something about the difficulties with which they have to contend. I might make a suggestion to the government: it would not be at all amiss to take the sales tax off the price of farm implements.
The Address-Mr. Forke


An hon. MEMBER:: And everything else.


Robert Forke: I have no objection to taking it off all along the line, and I think that would not be a bad move, it would help the manufacturers. But I am going to make an appeal to the Canadian manufacturers of implements-I do not know whether they will listen to me or not. The Canadian manufacturer claims that he is not getting very much protection. No doubt he knows his business better than I do, but I know the feeling of the farmers and I am pretty sure that if the Canadian manufacturer of implements to-day would say, "I do not want any protection; I am going to give the farmers the benefit of free agricultural implements," such a sentiment would be created in favour of the Canadian manufacturer that he would very soon get that mass production that he says he wants. Do you know what the situation is to-day on most of the farms? I know what it is in the West and I have an idea that it is the same almost everywhere. In making up our income tax returns we are allowed ten per cent depreciation upon our implements. Do you know that . there is hardly a farmer in the West who in his tax returns to-day is allowed any depreciation on his implements?-for the reason that his implements are all over ten years old; legally they are dead and gone, out of existence, but he is still carrying on with them, doing the best he can; he is letting acreage go out of cultivation rather than buy new implements. If that sympathetic feeling could be cultivated to-day, I am sure that a vast amount of new machinery would immediately be bought, and with the mass production that would result the implement manufacturer could, I think, get along very well almost without protection.
I have no quarrel with the, Canadian manufacturer. I think the farmer and the manufacturer ought to be in the same boat; there ought to be a bond of sympathy between them, because the welfare and prosperity of the one reacts upon the welfare and prosperity of the other.
The trouble to-day is not over-production but lack of consumption. Inability to buy, that is the trouble in Canada to-day. I do not know what the Massey Harris Company, for instance, are turning out to-day, but I have no hesitation in saying that they are not turning out over one-third of the machinery they were turning out ten or fifteen years ago. Now something must be done, and something can be done, and I am sure it would be done if a proper view were taken of the situation. I am not offering this as a panacea for all ills; I am only throwing it out fMr. Forke.]
as a suggestion to the manufacturers. I knowr something about Canadian implements, and 1 know very well that the implements made in Canada are just as good as, if not better than, the implements made anywhere else in the world at the present time.
Another matter that is mentioned in the Speech from the Throne is national unity. I think that was referred to somewhat sarcastically last night, but maybe I am wrong. It seems to me this is a question on which everyone should be terribly in earnest. It is something that we ought to consider very seriously to-day. What hopes, what grand ideas we have had for the future of this Canada of ours, and at this late day are we beginning to talk of national unity? Is there any danger that East and West shall fair apart? We have heard mutterings in the West and some in the East, but I for one hope we shall hear no more of them, that that shall be a thing of the past, and that henceforth we are going to march forward as a united country seeking only the welfare and happiness of the people of this whole Dominion. But, Mr. Speaker, in the final analysis national unity must be based upon national justice. That is the only solid basis upon which we can build u?>
a great and prosperous country. Is wealth to be centralized in any particular spot in this Dominion? I for one do not want to see this a country of millionaires and paupers living side by side. I want to see it a country of moderate wealth, widely distributed over this Dominion, and no section will long continue to pay tribute to any other section of the community.
I want to say this, and I say it in all seriousness, that high protection if persisted in will not spell prosperity, but in the long run it will spell disaster for this Dominion. Somtimes the United States is pointed out as a bright and shining example of what protection has done for a country. There can be no comparison in any way between the position of Canada and the position of the United States. The United States to-day, in some of its parts, at all events, is not in just as prosperous a condition as it might be. We know that agriculture in the United States, even with its vast home market, is unable to carry.on with any great degree of prosperity.
I want to say a few words upon the question of transportation, and I have another short extract here that I want to read. It is taken from an article written by F. W. Cowie, B.A., Sc., M.E.I.C., entitled Transportation Routes in Canada and their Relation to Enduring Production. He says:
There are few subjects, at the present time, of more acute public interest, and none more vital in connection

The Address-Mr. Forke
with enduring production in Canada, than transportation routes, and the urgent demand for a reduction in the price of transportation. Tax payers look with distrust at any suggestion of a new transportation route. On the other hand ugly facts regarding production stare us in the face.
Agricultural production, in western Canada, which otherwise offers such limitless exportable resources, is reported to be in danger of not enduring, on account of profitless returns as compared with competing countries where transportation to markets, pays a lower price-
I want to draw your attention particularly to this remark because I believe it is absolutely true:
The merchant whose desk overlooks the great harbour, and whose visitors smack of the sea, is no more concerned with international trade, than the farmer a thousand miles from the seaboard.
Now if the cost of moving goods is exorbitant it simply dries up the channels of trade. It is like the hardening of the arteries in the human body. It simply means that in the not far distant future the whole course of business will come to an end. Reduction in the cost of transportation is an absolute necessity in this country. Sometimes a thing may be an absolute necessity and yet not be within the bounds of probability. However, I do hope that there may be some method and some way adopted whereby we can reduce the cost of transportation, because I believe that upon the solving of this problem the future prosperity of our country to a very large degree depends. We want the shortest and the cheapest routes to be utilized. We sometimes speak about our Canadian [DOT]harbours. I want to see all the trade possible brought to our Canadian harbours. I want to see every harbour used to the extent that it is possible to use it with economy and to the best advantage.
I want to say a few words about the Hudson Bay railway. I know a great many gentlemen in this House are anxious to get a little more information in regard to this very much needed enterprise. In fact, I know that two members in this part of the House have taken the trouble during the recess to go over the Hudson Bay route, examining the condition of the roadbed., viewing the harbour and all the improvements that have been made up there, and if we seem a little exuberant in this part of the House over the building of the Hudson Bay railway, give us credit at least for trying to get all the information we possibly can upon this undertaking. I hope one of these gentlemen at least, and perhaps both of them, will tell the House what they saw and the condition of things generally in connection with the Hudson Bay railway. They came
back with a fine story, that there was a grand country up north, that it was well worth building a railroad into if for no other purpose than colonization, that there was great wealth up in that northern country. All over t.hei west during this last year there have been meetings held by boards of trade and resolutions passed by agricultural societies and other bodies. In the city of Winnipeg we have organized to-day a "Build the Hudson Bay road" society. I want the government and hon. members of this House to understand that not for one moment can this subject be downed, because the West is determined to have the Hudson Bay railway built, and it will be built, I believe, in the not far distant future. Bear in mind that a great many people have expressed a well-founded opinion on the feasibility of this route. For over three hundred years the ships of the Hudson's Bay Company were passing in and out of that harbour, and they had very, very few accidents in all those years. However, I think this subject will be dealt with at another time.
Another matter that is mentioned in the Speech from the Throne is the satisfactory showing made by the Canadian National Railways and the progress they have made during the past year. I think every lover of our country must rejoice in the fact that we see these roads on the way to prosperity. Year by year the conditions are improving and in the not very far distant future I believe we are going to have a valuable system of railways in this country in the possession of the people.
There is an idea, and it is not original with me-it has been mentioned quite frequently in this House-and that is that the overcapitalization of the National Railways ought to be written off and a re-valuation made, which would represent the actual value of the road, and in that way the Board of Management would be given an opportunity to show what could be done under government ownership of railways. At the present time the railways are loaded with money that was misspent, money that might just as well have been thrown into the sea. That expenditure was a national loss and the nation will have to stand that loss ultimately anyway, and it seems to me it would be good business to write down that over-capitalization to a figure that the railways actually represent. That would encourage the Board of Management and the people, and perhaps make it possible in the not far distant future to have a drastic cut in freight rates over the roads. I would like to say in connection with the Board of
The Address-Mr. Forke

Management that sometimes we see criticism of the board, but I think everyone who wishes well for these railways was agreed that the Board of Management ought to have a free hand, without any political manipulation or influence over them, to show what they could do and to see whether it was possible to make of that system a paying proposition. It seems to me that the Board of Management have done well. I think they have done just as well as could be expected under the conditions. That they have made mistakes, no one can deny. It is very human to make mistakes, and is there anyone in this House who is able to cast the first stone? So I do hope from this on that all political manoeuvring and party advantage will be lost sight of in connection with the railways, and that every member of this House will be anxious to see that the Board of Management and the Canadian National Railways are given a fair chance. I do not suggest that they are not getting a fair chance. I hope they are, but I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that the country will not stand for anything that will jeopardize the future welfare of this great enterprise. I sometimes think there might be something done in the way of a committee composed of members of all parties in this House who could perhaps take under their peculiar care matters affecting the Canadian National Railways- anything in the world to prevent the railways from being made a partisan matter on the floor of this House, anything that will get parliament working harmoniously together to see that the railways prosper.
Now just a word in regard to freight rates on the Great Lakes. We are told that provision is to be made that freight will be carried at the very lowest rate from the Great Lakes to the ocean, and from the ocean to Liverpool. When I think of the conditions last fall and what took place on the Great Lakes, it does not fill me with very much pride. I think that Canadians as a whole might rather feel humiliated over what happened on the Great Lakes last fall, and no matter what part of the House hon. gentlemen may sit in, I think the conditions reflected equally upon the whole parliament of this country. It seemed to me-and I know something about what was taking place at the time the bill dealing with lake freight rates was going through the House-a statement was made to me that might explain something that took place in the fall when the bill came into operation-that there was a contest between the government of Canada and the interests; and when I say "the interests" I do not use the expression in the sarcastic way which is

sometimes employed in this House; but when it came to a contest the people had to haul down their flag and make arrangements that would suit these gentlemen in connection with the carriage of lake freight. I give the government credit for the attempt that was made in this connection. I think that attempt was sincere and well meant, but it was futile because the interests were stronger and more powerful than parliament.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert Forke: Well, I am expressing my own opinion; and I can assure the government that they will get all the support it is possible for us to give them if they come to grips with an organization repeating any such demands as were made on the Great Lakes
last fall.	.
Now, let me say a word or two m connection with the subject of ocean freights. I was not very well satisfied with the answers given last session by the Minister of Agriculture to questions regarding what was being done with respect to the carrying of cattle over the ocean when the embargo against the admission of Canadian cattle into Great Britain was lifted. I cannot say what the reason was for the nature of the replies that we received, but they were not altogether satisfactory. Let me issue this warning to the government-perhaps the admonition may be unnecessary; they may be taking all adequate steps-that we are not going to be again put in the ridiculous position we formerly found ourselves in: when we fought for years and years to get the embargo against Canadian cattle removed, only to find that a line of freight boats was going to be inaugurated which would charge to the limit of what the service would stand. There can be, and there ought to be, steps taken to prevent any such unfortunate position as that. Surely enough ships can be found in Europe to transport our cattle at reasonable rates. I do not care what flag these vessels fly, but I do say that ships should be provided to transport our cattle at the lowest possible rate.
I am not going to say anything in particular on the subject of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. I expect the vessels of that marine are still afloat, and are still doing good service. However, I should like to make this suggestion, I did the same thing in connection with the Canadian National Railways: We all understand the conditions under which the Canadian Government Merchant Marine was built. The ships were constructed at a time when costs were excessive, and the vessels involved a much larger expenditure

The Address-Mr. Forke
than should have been the case. We will not enter into any discussion at the present time as to the reasons for this excessive cost, or why such a course was entered upon. It does seem to me, however, that it would be a wise proceeding to see whether the merchant marine could not be put on a sound basis and the transaction converted into
4 p.m. a profitable one. After all is said and done I am not convinced that these vessels are so useless as some of my hon. friends have tried to make the House believe.
A word or two now in regard to immigration. I know that my own opinions on this question do not exactly coincide with the views of some of the members even on my own side of the House. Nevertheless I feel impelled to make this statement: I do not for one moment think that putting up the bars against imports and then pulling them down in some other place, or letting in immigrants indiscriminately is going to solve our present difficulties. At the same time I do believe that a sane policy of immigration would have that happy result in the case of a great many of our troubles. I shall not rehearse the rather depressing story about the numbers of people that are leaving this country and crossing to the other side. Mr. Speaker, so long as Canadians live beside a nation which numbers one hundred and ten millions there will be, at all times, a certain drift of people into the United States. The attraction which numbers holds out, the operation of the law of gravitation, will have its influence and there will always be a movement of that kind to a greater or lesser extent. As to the question "Who goes to the United States?" let me say this: I had the privilege after the last session of parliament of visiting the city of Kingston and speaking there to the students of Queens University. I had the pleasure of attending the banquet of the graduating class of that year. I looked at that splendid gathering of young men and young women, bright, intelligent-oh! nothing finer in this Dominion-and the thought came into my mind, "Here are perhaps, a hundred young men and women of whom fifty per cent may cross the line in a very short time to seek an outlet for their energies, for their abilities, and for their education." That this seems to be the case is, to me, one of the tragedies of the present situation. I do not know just how we can cope with such a situation, but every attempt should be made to render conditions in Canada as attractive as possible in order that young people of that fine character may be induced to remain in their native land. I have often thought that if we could get some
young men with intelligence, with education, [DOT] and with initiative power out into our farming districts of the West to take up agriculture there as their life work, it would be a great blessing and a great advantage to that community. Unfortunately we do not find them there; the conditions are not such at the present time as to attract anybody who has any ambition whatever. '"Who comes and who goes?" I am afraid sometimes we are losing a very fine type of people. I am not blaming the government for this, I am not blaming anyone; I am looking conditions in the face and trying to find a remedy for them.
I have spoken of those who go. Now as to those who come. I have already said that I do not want to see a policy of indiscriminate immigration adopted. Do you know that in the three western prairie provinces the Anglo-Saxon people-and you might include with them those of the French race-are in the minority? Whatever the future of those provinces may be, the population is not going to be of Anglo-Saxon or of French descent; it is going to be something we know not what, and we want to be careful how we start out with foreign stock. I am not at all afraid, but we have at the present time just about enough to absorb of that description in our western prairie provinces. By all means, let us have immigration-immigration of the right sort. Get me young men, young women also, healthy and willing to work, coming from Great Britain, Scandinavia, France. I would not be afraid of Germans either at this time. They are all right; they will make good citizens in time. I will take all the immigration of that kind we can possibly get. The first thing we want to be careful about is to make conditions suitable for the people when they come here. Taxation is one of our problems; transportation is another, and the doubling of our population would go a long way towards solving those two problems. Conditions may not be just what they ought to be in Canada; but when w.e think of the
2,000,000 unemployed people in the British Isles to-day, we should not be afraid of inviting them here to work. Canada is all right; our country is as good as it ever was; we have just as much faith in it as we ever had, and notwithstanding the present difficulties which we are encountering, I have no fear at all for the future of our country.
In reading over the Speech from the Throne, I was rather sorry to see that when mention was made of the Bank Act, no notice was taken of some of the agitation that was going on in the country during the last year. Just the day after the Bank Act was passed last
The Address-Mr. Forke


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, we listened yesterday for some time to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and then to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) making charges and counter-charges of a rather serious character, including political bribery, misrepresentation, extravagance and sectional policies. Both these are honourable gentlemen, and I fancy that their statements must be accepted as substantially true. Possibly that is the reason why these newer groups are being sent to the House. About all that we who are in the minority here, can do4 is to present as faithfully as we can the opinions of the people who return us to this House.
Reference was made in the Speech from the Throne to the Imperial Conference and the Imperial Economic Conference. May I be permitted to express the belief that the greatest event which has happened in the Empire during the past year has been the attainment of office by the British Labour party. Any thoughtful man will recognize that this is not merely the coming into office of a new political party but that it rather represents the emergence into public life of a new set of ideals. It is very significant indeed that the last speaker (Mr. Forke), the leader of the Progressive party in this House, should have closed his speech with a quotation from the Prime Minister of Great Britain. Since, perhaps, we have not had a very full understanding of the position of labour, I should like to quote one or two sentences from the constitution of the British Labour party Its objects are national, inter-Dominion and international. It proposes:
To secure for the producers, by hand or by brain, the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, and the best obtainable system of popular administration, and control of each industry or service;
to co-operate with the labour and socialist organ-1 izations in the dominions and the dependencies with a view to promoting the purposes of the party, and to take common action for the promotion of a higher standard of social and economic life for the working population of the respective countries;
to cooperate with the labour and socialist organizations in other countries and to assist in organizing a federation of nations for the maintenance of freedom and peace, for the establishment of suitable machinery for the adjustment and settlement of international disputes by conciliation or judicial arbitration, and for such international legislation as may be practicable.
I desire to call attention to a paragraph or so taken from the manifesto which was issued to the people of Great Britain. I do so because I believe that the attitude of the present

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
government of Great Britain will have its very decided effects upon the policies of the various Dominions.
The Labour party challenges the tariff policy and the whole conception of economic relations underlying it. Tariffs are not a remedy for unemployment; they are an impediment to the free interchange of goods and services upon which civilized society rests. They foster a spirit of profiteering, materialism and selfishness, poison the life of nations, lead to corruption in politics, promote trusts and monopolies, and impoverish the people. They perpetuate inequalites in the distribution of the world's wealth, won by the labour of hands and brain. These inequalities the Labour party means to remove.
The Labour party proposes to restore to the people their lost rights in the land, including minerals, and to that end will work for re-equipping the Land Valuation Department, securing to the community the economic rent of land and facilitating the acquisition of land for public use.
The Labour party is working for the creation of a commonwealth of co-operative service. It believes that so far only a beginning has been made in the scientific organization of industry. It will apply in a practical spirit the principle of public ownership and control to the mines, the railway service and the electrical power stations, and the development of municipal services.
Labour's vision of an ordered world embraces the nations now torn with enmity and strife. It stands therefore for a policy of international co-operation, through a strengthened and enlarged League of Nations, the settlement of disputes by conciliations and judicial arbitration, the immediate calling by the British government of an international conference, including Germany, on terms of equality to deal with the Versailles Treaty, especially reparations and debts, and the resumption of free economic and diplomatic relations with Russia. This will pave the way for disarmament, the only security for the nations.
I think perhaps that members of this House will be in a better position to judge of the arguments and policies which we attempt from time to time to put forth in this comer of the House, if they understand that we have been working very much along the lines proposed by the Labour party of Great Britain cooperating with the international organizations of which it forms a unit.
Before I speak to the more general questions relative to economic conditions in Canada, I propose to introduce a particular matter which has been of very great concern to our working class population. I refer to the situation in Nova Scotia among the miners and steel workers. A commission has recently reported ' on the conditions there, but the Speech from the Throne contains no intimation whatever that any definite action is contemplated. We had a royal commission in 1920, we have had boards of inquiry and conciliation, we have had special inquiries, we have had the military sent down to that province twice within the last two years, and yet the conditions remain, if anything more unsatisfactory than ever. I say this in full view of the fact that recently the miners have returned to work. These inquiries and commissions have revealed wretched housing and sanitary conditions,

abuses connected with the company's stores, unsatisfactory working conditions, low wages and irregular work, and in the case of the steel workers long working days of eleven and thirteen hour shifts, with every other week twenty-four hours on end. These unsatisfactory conditions prevail notwithstanding the fact that Canada was a signatory of the Peace treaty under which the workers were supposed to be given an eight hour day.
The employees have been investigated. I would suggest that it is about time that the employers, the British Empire Steel Corporation, should be'investigated, and I would urge upon the government the appointment of a parliamentary committee that would go fully into these conditions which have been causing so much trouble to the authorities and such hardship to a considerable section of our people. This committee might very well investigate the abnormal profits of the corporation during the war, government contracts and subsidies, the absentee management with its officials alleged to be incompetent and superabundant, the fact that real costs and profits have often been concealed through contracts between constituent and subsidiary companies, and the amount of watered stock in the corporation.
About a year ago there appeared in the Toronto Star a series of articles dealing with the situation in Nova Scotia. One or two excerpts which suggest that the real investments of this company are not sufficient to warrant the large profits that the management insist upon taking out of the business may be of interest to hon. members. The writer says that the promoter in the first instance:
-estimated the cost of his plant at $6,000,000 at the outside. He then bonded it for that amount; and on top of that issued $15,000,000 in common stock. This original $15,000,000 of common "watered" stock is represented in the existing issues of Besco stock by $6,000,000 of common stock and by $13,500,000 of seven per cent second preference, on which the dividends are accumulative liability.
That was in the early days.
Fourteen companies of various grades of importance go to make up Besco. When the fourteen went into the caldron they owed in stocks of various kinds a little under $83,000,000. When the merging process had been completed these $83,000,000 had been transmuted into just under $102,000,000.
# * *
To pay dividends on nearly $102,000,000 of stocks should be a sufficient task for the men who have to manage an industry which must meet the world competition in the steel and coal trade. But before they can begin to do this they have to meet prior charges on over $31,000,000 of mortgages of various sorts. Thus% the total amount on which the managers of Besco must' struggle to pay interest is about $133,000,000.
But the addition of this $19,000,000 of "water" was not the only addition which the Besco promoters made

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
to the burdens of the men who have to make the industry pay. One of the most striking results which an analysis of the Besco consolidation yields is the transformation of common into preferred stocks that took place. In the Besco process common stocks' were reduced from sixty-three to twenty-four millions while preferred stocks rose from nineteen to seventy-seven millions.
* * [DOT]
The result of this transformation process has been the addition of charges of over $4,000,000 to the annual liabilities of the industry.
These are the statements of Mr. Francis A. Carman, who made a special investigation of the situation.
Now, the claim has been made that higher wages and more satisfactory conditions could not be given because of the financial position of this company. We find in the Montreal papers of February 1922 the annual report of the British Empire Steel Corporation. It reads:
The total earnings of the property, after deducting all manufacturing, selling and administrative expenses, amounted to $4,444,346.
Mr. R. M. Wolvin, the president, said:
After the provision of amounts required to pay all dividends accrued upon first preference stock of the corporation and the preference and preferred stock of constituent and subsidiary companies outstanding, there remained a balance of $1,031,031.07 at credit of surplus account on the 31st December, 1923. This amount added to the surplus of constituent companies carried forward $21,784,870.32 makes a consolidated surplus, $22,815,901.39.
I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that at least a decent living wage ought to be the very first claim upon the earnings of a corporation of this character.
As late as January 31st our newspapers gave the report of the commission which had been investigating the situation in Newfoundland. At a time when important negotiations were in progress between the Newfoundland government and the company, ex-Premier Squires received $46,000 from funds of the Dominion Steel Company. The action was approved by Roy Wolvin and other high officials. The people of Nova Scotia are asking: Is the Newfoundland government the only one involved?


Mr. CARROLL:: Does my hon. friend not know that Mr. Walker, of England, is investigating that very question in Newfoundland at the present time? The receipt of the $46,000 does not appear to have been proven yet, and the investigation is about half through.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Certain admissions have already been made. My point is that this with the other matters which I have mentioned might very well be investigated by a parliamentary committee appointed at this session. When we find these vast natural resources of Canada under the control of an
autocratic company and the large majority of the workers deprived of any voice in the management of their own affairs, I wonder whether we can claim that we have in any measure succeeded in establishing democracy in this country. I venture to quote a paragraph or two from a recent book by Viscount Milner, The Questions of the Hour:
The real gravamen of the charge against our present industrial system is not that it involves an unfair distribution of the product, but that it mismanages, misdirects and therefore unduly limits production itself.
Such results are inevitable as long as the investment of capital, determining as it does the nature and distribution of employment, is governed wholly by considerations of individual gain.
They (the wage earners) have nothing whatever to say as to the direction of capital, upon which their employment depends, yet they may at any moment be reduced to penury by its misdirection.
Over at least four fifths of the field of national industry the supreme direction is still exclusively in the hands of the moneyed class, and is entirely out of the control, and indeed beyond the ken, of the great body of producers.
There is nothing sacrosanct in the present divorce of the great body of producers from the ownership and control of the instruments of production. .. it is of comparatively recent growth.
Again and again during the past few years the workers of Nova Scotia have attempted to obtain some redress, and I think it perfectly proper to bring their case before this House, which is supposed to safeguard the interests of all the citizens of Canada. They have appealed to the provincial governments; they have appealed to the federal government. Two years ago they asked for a royal commission that would investigate thoroughly the whole situation. Their request was refused. A year ago they came asking for pensions for their aged miners who were helpless after long years of work. I believe that all they carried away from Ottawa was a copy of the Prime Minister's book, Industry and Humanity. They have sought to secure representation in parliament, but they claim that owing to gerrymandering, by which two counties were thrown into a two-member constituency, it has been made very difficult for the industrial workers to secure representation. They further claim that owing to a roorback, false appeals which were circulated immediately prior to the election, their candidate at that time, Mr. J. B. McLachlan, was defeated. I am not going into these matters. I should like this House to know that the miners claim that it has been impossible for them to obtain representation on the floor of this House. So they have been driven again and again to the strike as the only weapon which they could use. Their position in this matter has been entirely misrepresented. It was misrepresented by the papers a year ago. In

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
a more recent strike, we were told that they had broken contracts. They maintain that according to a decision of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia given a year ago they were free to cease from their work.
That brings me to a question that has been of very great interest to the workers of Canada from coast to coast, namely, the arrest and conviction of J. B. McLachlan, the secretary of the miners. I am very glad indeed to give credit to the government in that within the last two or three days an order has been issued for the release of J. B. McLachlan on parole. It has not been generally known that the other six men who were arrested and convicted at the same time were released some time ago. I understand that Mr. McLachlan is still in Dorchester penitentiary. Whether or not he will accept his release on ticket-of-leave, I do not know, but although his release may be a certain kindness to him and to his family, it by no means goes far enough, because he still stands as a criminal. For what was he arrested? Because he wrote a circular letter which he sent out to the different unions, protesting against the brutal action of the provincial police of Nova Scotia. He stated how this force of provincial policemen had ridden down men, women and children who were going peaceably about their business. I have here-I will not take the trouble to read them to the House-statutory declarations which were presented to the commission which recently reported, substantially corroborating the statements which Mr. McLachlan had made. He was charged with spreading a false tale, and also with sedition. He was taken to Halifax, and the charge of spreading a false tale was dropped; it was found that his tale was all too true. The authorities then proceeded with the second charge, that of seditious libel. I am not going to weary the House by going into the history of the law of sedition. It is an obsolete law; it was not used in England, or very rarely used, for nearly one hundred years. The safeguards which have existed in this law up to 1919 were removed by a bit of vicious legislation which was rushed through this House at that time. Essentially sedition, although not defined in the code, consists in the criticizing of public authorities. I submit that if half as serious charges had been made by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) out in the open as he made jn the floor of the House yesterday, he could be charged under this law of sedition, and for the life of me I do not see that anything could save him. But surely we have got beyond the time when authorities are immune from criticism. We
f Mr. Woodsworth. ]
are surely supposed to be living in a day of democratic institutions, and if authorities are not doing the right thing they ought to be criticized. There have always existed men of heroic mould who are willing to stand up and claim their rights, and Mr. J. B. McLachlan, I believe, is one of these. It is ninety years since in Nova Scotia a man was tried for sedition. Then a man was haled before the courts and accused of being "a wicked seditious and ill-disposed person, a person of most wicked and malicious temper and disposition." That man is now regarded as one of Canada's greatest sons, Joseph Howe. But he was able to say at that time, in connection with his trial:
And here I may be permitted to thank heaven and our ancestors, that I do not stand before a corrupt and venal court and a packed and predetermined jury.
Was J. B. McLachlan able to say that? He had been taken from his own home county and sent off to be tried in Halifax, a city which through the papers and through false representation had been poisoned against the miners through a period of many months, if not years. Further than that, his case was dealt with by judges many of whom up to the time of their elevation to the bench had been very closely connected with the coal companies. I am not for one moment accusing these judges of wilfully prostituting their office, but I say that men who for many, many years have been financially interested in certain concerns might find it very, very hard to dissociate themselves from certain points of view which they would almost inevitably have acquired. I asked, when in Nova Scotia, concerning the judges of the supreme court, and I was told that the corporation influence on the bench was so strong that the court is looked upon by labour as a company department. At least four judges were very closely connected with the companies in New Glasgow before their appointment to the bench.
Chief Justice the Hon. Robert E. Harris was president of the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company shortly before his appointment. Mr. Justice Mellish, the trial judge in the McLachlan case, received his appointment in a manner which makes him an outstanding corporationist on the bench. His appointment was made shortly before the criminal trial of the Dominion Coal Company officials for causing the New Waterford explosion. The New Waterford explosion took place at New Waterford, C.B., N.S., on July 25, 1917; some 65 or 70 men losing their lives by it. The men contended the explosion was caused through negligence of the corporation and its officials, and an information was laid. The

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
then Mr. Mellish was a member of the firm of Mclnnis, Mellish, Fulton and Kenny, Halifax, N.S. This firm were the chief solicitors, as their successors are to-day, for the Dominion Coal Company and the Dominion Steel Corporation, before the merger of these and other companies into the Besco. Mr. Mellish appeared in court on all their actions. This information being laid, the office of Mclnnis and Mellish was preparing the case for the companies involved. Shortly before the trial, Mr. Mellish received his appointment as Judge of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. His first important work on the bench was to hear the New Waterford explosion case at Sydney, the defence of which he had prepared for the companies, and their officials, Mr. Hector Mclnnis, senior in his law firm, being chief counsel for the defence on the trial at Sydney.
Mr. Justice D. D. McKenzie, a puisne judge of the court, was, previous to his appointment, the local solicitor for the Nova Scotia Steel Company, at North Sydney, and was very closely in touch with Besco.
Mr. Justice Ritchie, previous to his appointment, did work for the Dominion Coal Company. Whether he was a permanent solicitor or not, I just do not know. However, he appeared in some cases on their behalf.
Mr. Justice Rogers, previous to his appointment, was a partner of Henry, Rogers, Harris and Stewart, Halifax, and solicitor for the Nova Scotia Steel Company.
The other judges on the bench are Justices Russell and Chisholm, neither of whom had known relations with these companies.
Perhaps I should add that the Nova Scotia workers point out that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald), who is officially responsible for the troops being sent to Cape Breton, has been, if he is not still, the solicitor for the coal companies. Now, Mr. Speaker, if anything more were needed to destroy the respect for the impartiality of the courts it was suplied by the congratulatory telegram sent by Besco to the Attorney General of Nova Scotia.
I regret to say that not only was there no intimation in the Speech from the Throne that any action was to be taken to give relief to this large body of people in Nova Scotia, but further there is no intimation that any action is to be taken with regard to the iniquitous legislation which was placed on the statute book in 1919. The Prime Minister intimated yesterday that several of the measures which had been passed by this House last year were to be reintroduced. But he did not suggest that the amendment to the 5
Immigration Act was to be reintroduced. I have still hopes that the government may consider this matter; That is why I am bringing it before the House to-day. The necessity for this legislation, without going into details, I can bring before the House by reading a resolution passed at the last annual convention of the Ontario section of the Canadian Labour party:
That, whereas, during the post-war hysteria in the year 1919, there were passed in the federal parliament amendments to the Immigration Act; amendments to the Criminal Code; amendments to the Naturalization Act, which, in effect, deprived all citizens born outside of Canada, including British born, of the right of trial by jury, which removed the constitutional safeguards of freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom of assembly, and which rendered acquired Canadian citizenship valueless; therefore, be it resolved, that this convention of the Ontario section of the Canadian Labour party urge the two Labour members and the Progressive members of the federal House to put forth every endeavour to have this undemocratic and unBritish legislation removed from the statute books of Canada.
I am glad to note that this convention called upon the Progressives to aid in this work. I would like to believe that the Liberal party of Canada has still a sufficient respect for the old Liberal traditions that it would feel that at this session of the House it could carry out the objects of the resolution which I have just read.
In his day, Joseph Howe was fighting against an iniquitous institution known popularly as The Family Compact. He is honoured today as others of the older stock of Canadians have been honoured, because they so bravely took up this fight. I venture to say that J. B. McLachlan and others who are fighting against the great trusts which have grown up over all this Dominion are fighting against a more dangerous and menacing institution, or series of institutions, than that of The Family Compact. The Prime Minister is rather fond of boasting that his grandfather was a rebel. Unless he is very careful the Prime Minister's grandchildren will not be able to boast that concerning him.
The Speech from the Throne suggests that there have been many evidences of increased prosperity in Canada. I may say that I have spent a good part of the recess in travelling across Canada from coast to coast. Possibly I did not meet the same class of people that those who are responsible for the Speech from the Throne met, but I must confess I have failed to see these alleged evidences of increased prosperity. I am not a pessimist. I think it is unfair to characterize those of us who point out defects as pessimists. I would like to think that I am a realist and believe in facing the facts as they are. In my own



The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
province of Manitoba conditions have been so serious that during the past year some 131 schools with 141 class rooms have been closed, very largely owing to the economic conditions of the rural districts.
Just here I might say it does seem to me that the school trustees of Manitoba were right when they suggested that it might be necessary that the federal authorities should, in some way, subsidize education in the various provinces. I am quite well aware that education is a matter of provincial concern, but it seems hardly fair for the federal authorities to introduce large numbers of immigrants and at the same time to allow economic conditions to prevail which drive large numbers of people out of the country, without their assuming some responsibility for the social and educational needs of those that are now here.
That same suggestion applies with regard to the great question of unemployment. We are told that the employment situation is distinctly better. Well, if that is really the case, what is the reason? The large emigration to the United States, I suppose, coupled with the fact that the government immigration machinery has not yet got into full motion. My own city of Winnipeg last year expended the sum of $150,000 in relief work, in relieving some 7,447 cases. The civic authorities expressed the view last year, and they still feel, that the Dominion government should give some assistance in caring for these who required relief on account of their having arrived comparatively recently in Canada. In Vancouver, as early as October 3, there was sent out to the prairie provinces-I am reading from the Winnipeg Tribune of October 3-this warning to unemployed to stay away from Vancouver:
Warning to Unemployed.
Stay away from Vancouver, B. C. This Winter.
4,500 men have gone from Vancouver and district to the harvest fields, and there still remain more than sufficient to meet all local requirements.
Conditions are already bad throughout British Columbia.
No relief work at all will be provided this winter.
I would simply submit that this would be splendid immigration literature. Under the prevailing conditions Toronto has had returned harvesters on its hands. Then, as late as the 26th February I received from the Building Trades Council of Hamilton an urgent request that something should be done. The statement is made:
The workers seem to have used up their nest-eggs during the previous winter. Many of the cases we have personally known have not eaten meat for weeks.
Furthermore a committee in Montreal as late as February 28, reports 25,000 unemployed in that city. In Ottawa we are told by

the Social Service Commissioner that there are 2,400 persons receiving relief. I do not know how many unemployed there will be after the civil service reductions have been completed.
The harvest, we are informed, is the most bountiful in the country's history. Yes, but let me ask, what about the net return? I have seen passing through Winnipeg day after day continuous trains of cars loaded with wheat going eastward, but all the cars that return are empty, which indicates pretty much the situation that prevails in the West.
We are informed that there is to be a reduction of taxation. We have yet to leam how, and how much. What we need essentially in Canada is the reduction of the enormous load that is now crippling industry. We have the war debt, and there has been no suggestion put forward by the government as to how that tremendous load is to be lessened. In fact, it seems that we shall be driven to adopt the old principle of the economists, that "those shall pay who are best able to pay." If that principle is to be put into practice we shall have an extension instead of a lessening of the income tax, we shall have the 5 p.m. establishment of an inheritance tax, we shall have the adoption of a tax on land values and the values of other natural resources thus giving the people more ready access to these.
We are told that there are to be certain tariff re-adjustments. Just what these are I do not know, but I would suggest that the tariff re-adjustments must be accompanied by other measures, or their results may prove disastrous. It may very well be, if the privileges of certain industries are taken away from them without other corresponding changes in our system, that there will result very great hardship indeed. We all recognize that manufacturing in this country is difficult because of the high overhead charges, including all kinds of inflation, and because of the taxation and the high cost of living. What we need to do to-day is to adopt some system by which these costs may be lessened and industry may be able to go free. In fact I have sometimes thought that the greatest financial need of to-day is the raising of the mortgages that press so heavily upon industry of every description. I wish we had something in the nature of what we are told about in the Old Testament, the establishment of a year of jubilee when the slaves and the debtors could go free. If that could be brought about once I am sure there would be prosperity in Canada.

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
It is intimated that there is to be strict economy in the administration of the public service. That is capital. Everyone will agree that nothing could be better. But when the statement goes on to call for rigorous retrenchment in the public expenditures, I think we shall have to say that the wisdom of this policy all depends on many things. There is an old proverb which says:
There is that seattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty.


Mr. McMASTER:: And, "The liberal
soul shall be made fat."


James Shaver Woodsworth: "And the liberal
soul shall be made fat." I suppose the crux of that question is as to what constitutes "a liberal soul."


Mr. MARTELL:: It is a good soul if it is
truly Liberal.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I quote a
sentence or two in this connection from the report of the ordinary general meeting of the shareholders of the Midland Bank Limited, as reported in the London Times of January 26, 1924. The Right Hon. Reginald McKenna said on that occasion:
When national output is below productive capacity the policy should be to let money out: When production is at a maximum, the outflow of money should be checked, and if inflationary symptoms have appeared money should be withdrawn.
We have deliberately to make up our minds as to what we want.
If we mean to get rid of unemployment we must have more money in existence to take up the increased production.
This, of course, refers particularly to bank policy, but it is equally true of a government policy in dealing with financial affairs. As Mr. J. A. Hobson maintains in The Economics of Unemployment:
The proper provision against trade depressions and unemployment lies in strengthening the consuming powers of the community, so that effective demand for consumable goods may keep full pace with every increased productivity that arises from improvements in the arts of industry; and the strengthening of consumption is obtained by a better distribution of the product of industry.
The Speech from the Throne makes incidental reference to the Home Bank, and there is to be provision, we are told, for the appointment of a commission. May I ask the question that has been asked very generally across Canada-Why not an investigation by parliament itself? Perhaps we on this side of the House are apt to feel just now that no group was more speedily justified than those of us who last year attempted to secure greater security for the shareholders and depositors of the banks. It was stated
that there was no need for the adoption of an amendment which I myself put forward, that there should be government auditors. If I remember aright the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) told us that he had consulted with the bankers and that they did not consider government auditors necessary. We feel further that we were quite justified in asking that there should be a full investigation into the whole of the credit system. We trust that the recommendations of last year's committee will be carried out this year.
In closing, since it is very difficult for a small group such as we are, through the motions and amendments which are brought forward adequately to express what our viewpoint really is, I venture to summarise very briefly.
In view of the enormous national debt with its heavy interest charges; of the high taxation, much of which results in the transference of wealth from the many to the few; of the burden of overhead charges which is crippling industry and commerce; of the deplorable condition of agriculture owing largely to tariffs, high freight rates and inadequate credit facilities; of unemployment resulting from a lack of purchasing power sufficient to absorb production; of the continued emigration of our people; of the instability of our banks as revealed in recent mergers and failures; of the concentration of economic power in the hands of a small group who are able to direct the policy of industry for their own financial gain, rather than toward supplying human needs:
And also in view of the fact that Canada possesses abundant natural resources; sufficient plant equipment-now working below capacity-to convert our raw material into consumable commodities; a plentiful supply of labour to man the plant equipment; and ample national credit-based on our national resources and the productive power of our people-more than sufficient to finance every necessary industrial and commercial enterprise :
We urge that during the present session of parliament steps should be taken towards:
(a)	the establishment of a proper system of taxation by which our natural resources will be made more readily available for the use of the people:
(b)	the operation under co-operative and democratic management of our plant equipment, thus providing more abundantly for the needs of the people:
(c)	reforms, or reorganization, in our financial system by means of which more equitable distribution may be secured:
The Address-Mr. Marcil

(d)	the basing of our foreign trade policy and international relations on the clear recognition that the world has become an economic unit in which the welfare of each nation is dependent upon the welfare of all others.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend at this time of the afternoon to follow the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) in his remarks concerning labour conditions in England, labour conditions in Nova Scotia, and those prevailing in the different cities in Canada. My attention was drawn somewhat to conditions prevailing in the cities of Montreal and Toronto and other places near Ottawa where we have some knowledge of what is taking place at the present time. He complains that in those large cities there is unemployment during the winter season. That has been one of the drawbacks of Canada since Canada has been in existence. We have seasonal occupation. In Montreal, with which I am familiar, as I have lived there most of my life, every fall and early winter there is an invasion of people from the country districts who have been engaged during the summer in navigation, in farming, railway construction and so on, and who enter the city for the purpose of wintering there. That condition has prevailed at all times. It prevails in Winnipeg; it prevails in Ottawa; and .it will prevail generally throughout Canada until we find seasonal occupations during the winter season. An attempt has been made in that respect through the western country, and from what I have been able to gather, I understand that it has met with a measure of success. In Montreal, at the present time, the building trades are occupied with trying to solve that problem of carrying on building operations during the whole of the winter so as to prevent those large numbers of workmen from being unemployed during the winter season. That is one matter which will have to be solved with time and with the experience which has been gained. No government can be blamed for that condition of affairs, no more than can any government be blamed for the emigration of Canadians to the United States.
This is my twenty-fifth session of parliament that I am beginning now and I have heard that discussed over and over again at all times. I have more particular knowledge of the province of Quebec, where I was born and brought up than of any other part of Canada, and I well remember away back fifty years ago when I was a mere boy, that
rMr. Woodsworth.]
farm houses in the valley of the Richelieu, farm houses in the valley of the St. Lawrence were closed for one, two, three years while the farmer left with his family to enter the manufacturing towns of the New England states, to make up for what he was unable to extract from his farm. They went there by the thousands. I believe to-day [DOT] there are not less than 2,000,000 Canadians, three-quarters of them of French-Canadian origin, who now inhabit the eastern states. In some cities they have almost a majority. They have elected lieutenant governors. They have elected mayors of cities. They have some of their own numbers at the head of the largest enterprises in the New England states. In some cases in the state legislatures they constitute if not a majority, at least one-half of the representation. The late Curtis Guild, a former governor of Massachusetts, told me twenty years ago when I was honoured by the Canadian Club of Boston by being asked to deliver an address there, that at that time there were enough Canadians and descendants of Canadians, mostly from the Maritime provinces, to control the election of the mayor of Boston. Therefore, this exodus from Canada to the United States has existed at all times. It has been accentuated during the last year or two because of the industrial boom which has taken place in the United States and with which all readers of the newspapers are familiar. Higher wages attract the workmen especially during the [winter season when unemployment is the rule in Canada, and they go from all parts of Canada to the United States. From my own constituency a stream of young men left for Detroit to work in the automobile factories there. Some of them made a success of their trip; others were there for a time; but the majority of them have come back, because there is a lure of the home land which cannot be found elsewhere. The great drawback, however, of Canada is that we have lost many valuable sons and daughters who have gone to other lands, chiefly to the United States, and whom we should have kept here. But as the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) has said, as long as the United States remains as it is, it is impossible to believe that the day will ever come when that great magnet will not be an attraction for Canadians. The only solution for that problem which we have is to try to keep our people at home by giving them employment here, realising that a Canadian is a man who is born or brought up	in
this country and who is enamoured of the country and that a Canadian is worth

The Address-Mr. Marcil
two men who come from the outside.
I heard the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) a moment ago refer to immigration in the West. Immigration is not a burning issue in my constituency nor was it ever of any great consequence there. The same is true, Mr. Speaker, of the constituency you represent. Both you and I, Sir, represent in this House-you have done so for almost thirty years and I for nearly a quarter of a century-the oldest part of the province of Quebec, that spot where Jacques Cartier landed before he ascended the St. Lawrence and proceeded ultimately to Quebec and Montreal. That part of the province of Quebec, the Gaspesian peninsula, comprises some ten thousand square miles, the size of an ordinary kingdom or two of Europe, and it has never been the centre of attraction for immigrants. They all pass by the shores of Gaspe and ascend the St. Lawrence, going on to Ontario and the West. The Gaspe country, I say, has no attractions for settlers coming from Europe. An attempt was made some years ago by the provincial government to establish some Belgian farmers in the backwoods of St. Charles de Caplan in my constituency, but the poor people who came in almost perished the first winter. They all departed in the following spring. No; we shall never have immigration into the Gaspe peninsula because the people who make a success of life there are the rugged woodsmen and fishermen, who are to the manner bom; they are indigenous to the soil, so to speak, and can stand a temperature of 25 or 30 degrees below zero. They spend the winter in their lumber shanties and with their. axe hew out such farm land as is necessary for the young settler and his family. That is the class of people who inhabit that country; they do not come from Europe and they never will. Those immigrants who come to Canada from Europe are attracted to the fertile fields of the western plains, where they are told that in a year or two there is a crop awaiting them. I do not blame them because I know that the same attraction exists for the Americans who come across the border.
We have had problems discussed in this House, some of which I am sorry to say have not been solved to this day; but others have been solved by the common sense of the Canadian people, because under our form of government there is a solution for every grievance no matter what its nature may be. We have difficulties at the present time, and one of the outstanding difficulties is the paucity of the population as compared with the great burden we have to bear as a result of our participation
in the war. It was my good fortune when commissioner of Montreal three or four years ago to receive, along with my colleagues, that eminent man who played such a great part in the world war, Cardinal Mercier. His visit was a very transient one; he was merely passing through the country on his way elsewhere. He was not as familiar with Canadian conditions as we should have liked him to be, because his visit was originally intended for the United States. But when we told him of the extent of the participation of our Canadian people in the world war he was amazed to learn that 600,000 Canadians had gone overseas and that this country had incurred a debt which was truly bewildering. The distinguished -prelate could hardly conceal his astonishment at learning the extent to which we had gone into the war.
Now that things have calmed down and the events of that time have passed into history, and many of those who participated in the debates then have disappeared from the scene, we may admit that we probably overdid matters in the war in our enthusiasm to do our share. We probably sent to the other side many men who should not have been sent, many who were unfit for the trenches, many who were unable to do the work which they were called upon to do. We probably incurred a great deal of indebtedness which we could have avoided if we had had the wisdom we now have. In one of the last speeches of the late Minister of Militia, who was so energetic in organising the first and second contingents to Europe, that gentleman declared that every dollar spent in the war was wasted, because war was waste from beginning to end. However that may be, we have to face the conditions to-day and we must bear them.
There is no man who is familiar with the state of affairs in this country at the present time, who knows its natural resources and knows the spirit of the people, who doubts for a moment that Canada will meet all her obligations. The Canadian dollar stands at par in the markets of the world; it stands practically so in New York; and this is a matter for gratification when we remember that the countries of Europe have witnessed the depreciation of their currency to the extent that we have seen.
The solution we must find is to do away with any misunderstanding which may exist, as some have said, between western and eastern Canada. I was glad to hear the leader of the Progressive party declare that so far as he knew there was no reason why there should be any cleavage between the two great portions of this count.rv. The salvation
The Address-Mr. Marcil

of this Dominion lies in a united Canada. We may have differences of opinion; we may kneel at different shrines; we may speak different languages. But our aim should be one, the union of our people and the building-up in this North American continent of a great nation equal to the ones from which we have sprung. I heard the hon. member say that in some provinces of the West the people of British stock, together with the French Canadians,-because after all they are practically Britishers too, equal to if indeed not better than some Britishers-find themselves to-day in the minority in the West amongst the people who have come from other countries. That is a matter which the government cannot very well overlook. It should make certain that at all times there is a majority of people in this country who have been brought up under British institutions and who can be assimilated into Canadian citizenship.
The House was no doubt pleased, as I am sure the country was, to learn from the lips of the Prime Minister, (Mr. Mackenzie King) of the great improvement which has taken place in our finances, in business and in transportation, and in matters generally of common interest to the country. Now, two years and a few months is a very brief period for a new administration to undertake to put its house in order after the country has passed through such an ordeal as this country experienced from 1914 to 1921. True, the war ended in 1918; but the three years that followed, with demobilization and the responsibilities which were imposed upon the country, was a terrible ordeal for a country, and this government accepted a heritage such as was never bequeathed to any other administration. The leader of the Progressive party said a moment ago that the government found itself in the minority at the present time. Well, the leader of the opposition, (Mr. Meighen) did not care to put that question to the test. So far as we have gone I have reason to believe that if the Speech from the Throne is adopted, and I have no doubt that it will be, if the broad lines therein laid down are followed out, this government is no longer in a minority; far from it, it will have an overwhelming majority in the House, because the Speech from the Throne appeals to the common sense, the patriotism and the honesty of every hon. member. We all have in view the betterment of the country's finances and the solution of our railway difficulties; we desire to see an improvement in the transportation

problem and an increase in our population, together with a stabilization of finance. These are all questions on which we can agree. We may differ as to the methods by which they are to be settled, but undoubtedly we all have these things as a part of our aim in the fulfilment of our duty.
I must congratulate the government, and I know the great majority of this House will do the same, upon having realized the great responsibility placed upon it and that economy -not economy, as we might say, in the stopping of productive expenditure, but economy in stopping waste, no matter where it exists -is about to be introduced. This is absolutely necessary in the present condition of the country.
Our exports and our imports are increasing, our business generally is good. The feeling between the West and the East is improving. Changes have been hinted at in the tariff, The Canadian government is composed of men who are familiar with the various conditions prevailing in Canadian industry today, and we may depend upon them to see that any change made in the tariff will be such as will benefit the whole country, and that no deliberate step will be taken to wound or fatally destroy any of our industries which have a reason to exist. Changes in the tariff have to be made carefully after proper consideration, and if they are brought about, as they should be, in the interests of the whole people, they will be accepted as such, because manufacturers as well as farmers must take the sweet and the sour; they cannot expect that tariffs will always be favourable to their views.
The hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) has spoken of the conditions prevailing in some communities, in the course of which he referred to the overhead charges and the long hours of labour, but I did not hear him make any reference to the high wages prevailing in some of our cities. The manufacturer says that these high wages are a drawback to him in meeting the competition of the American and the English manufacturer. He claims he is paying higher wages than are paid in some parts of the United States, but more especially higher wages than are paid in Great Britain. I would be the last man in this House to advocate the reduction of the wages of a working man, because I am somewhat familiar, having lived for many years in a large city, with the conditions he has to put up with, especially if he is rearing a large family, and this has been the rule rather than the excep-

The Address-Mr. Marcil
tion in our province. Therefore I would be the last man to take away a farthing from a working man who is bringing up a family. On the other hand, it might be good policy to ask working men, who are more familiar with their own conditions than we can expect to be, whether very high wages naturally and necessarily mean prosperity for them. If the cost of living is to increase in consequence of the high wages that are being paid, where is the advantage to the working men? Would it not be better to make a gradual readjustment, in the course of which wages would be reduced as well as the cost of living? We all remember when Canadians used to work for $1.50 a day. When I was a boy running around the lobbies of the old House the men across the river in the Booth and the Eddy mills used to work for $1, $1.25 and $1.50 a day of ten hours, and they were perfectly happy and just as prosperous as their successors to-day who are earning from $4 to $8 a day. The value of the Canadian dollar then was one hundred cents; to-day we are told its value is fifty cents. So the working man today is probably not as well off as in the old days. These a,re conditions we are not all familiar with, but which need to be studied before any legislation is enacted, and I have enough confidence in the intelligence of the present administration to realize that no deliberate step will be taken to injure any portion of our people, but that they will be guided solely by the main object of the good of the people as a whole.
We have heard a great deal from the West. Other members will speak for their sections of the country; it is my right and duty, Mr. Speaker, to refer more particularly to my own constituency. In so doing I am sorry that I must bring up an issue which I have discussed many times in this House. In the Gaspe peninsula transportation is the great question, as it is in western Canada, and as it is no doubt in other parts of the Dominion. Lately a Roman Catholic bishop has been appointed to the See of Gaspe, which has one of the finest seaports in North America. I am referring to Monseigneur Ross, whose grandfather was a Scotchman, tout who met the fate that all Scotchmen meet when they marry French Canadian women. He gave up the Gaelic language and started to speak French. He is a young but distinguished man and has undertaken to give the Gaspe peninsula some of the many things which it is lacking. One of these is education, another is the development of that part of the province of Quebec. He has been seconded in his efforts very heajtily by the government of the province in so far as
their jurisdiction extends to the improvements he has in view. He is building a seminary there, he is building schools, and at the present time he is negotiating with the Trappist Fathers-at Oka to establish an industrial school so as to extend to the Gaspe people the benefits of agricultural instruction. He is carrying on a campaign of colonization of the land. But he has told you, Mr. Speaker, and he has told me, and he has told the people publicly, and he has told Sir Henry Thornton at a meeting to which I shall refer in a moment, that all this work will be in vain if the railway situation in that country is not brought to a solution. I know the attitude taken by the present government, that the railways are out of their control, having been handed over to the management of Sir Henry Thornton and a board of directors. I with the majority in this House voted for the placing of the National Railways in the hands of a commission having at its head a distinguished man; and Canadians today are familiar enough with Sir Henry Thornton to know that he is a distinguished man in every respect, and that we have been very fortunate in securing his services.
When the question of bringing about _ a change in the railway situation in our district became acute, I suggested to Monseigneur Ross that the best thing would be to bring Sir Henry Thornton into the constituency in order that he might become familiar with the people and the natural resources and he came on your invitation, Mr. Speaker. The Gaspe peninsula is not on the main line of travel. If it were it would be to-day one of the finest strategical points in the Dominion. As you go to the Maritime provinces you cross the Restigouche river at Matapedia and the Gaspe peninsula is left on one side. When Sir Hugh Allan promoted navigation on the St. Lawrence he contemplated making Gaspe a port of call for all steamers, and then having fast trains established so that mails could be delivered practically between Detroit and Chicago by the time the steamer reached Quebec. But political influences at that time prevailed. Sir Hector Langevin represented the county of Rimouski and he had the port placed at Father Point; the late Senator Landry got a quarantine station established in his constituency at Grosse Isle, and so on: in a word, Gaspe was neglected. But one day the construction of a railway was undertaken on the Gaspe coast. Sir Charles Tupper was Minister of Railways, and Sir Hector Langevin asked the Dominion parliament in 1884 to vote $400,000 for the construction of a branch line along the Gaspe coast from Matapedia to

I realize in making this report that it is not part of my official duties as Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners, but, having given the matter a good deal of personal consideration, I feel I am not overstepping the bounds of propriety in giving you my personal views on such an important subject.
I will leave the matter there, Mr. Speaker. It is close to six o'clock and I do not want to impose upon the House the necessity of listening to a minute description of all the resources we have in that peninsula-ten thousand square miles of what is practically "terra incognita," merely the shore line inhabited, but inhabited by seventy thousand rugged people, the descendants of the pioneer settlers of that part of the country, many from Great Britain, others from France, and others from other parts of the province of Quebec. We ask for these people fair treatment. We ask that they be given an opportunity to eke out a living in that part of Canada to which they have stuck so long and so faithfully. Nothing is more painful to you, Mr. Speaker and to myself, than to see these people emigrating to the American cities or to other parts of Canada-they who live in one of the most fertile parts of the province of Quebec, blessed with a double crop, the crop of the sea and the crop of the land, with lumber and minerals galore. We have discovered recently in the township of Lemieux, in the county of Gaspe, four square miles of lead and zinc which are declared by the experts of the Mines department to be superior to the famous Joplin deposits in the state of Missouri. We have fisheries which are second to none; our Gaspe salmon is the finest fish in the world; we have the finest population. All we ask is a chance for these people to stay at home, and if this present government can stop the exodus from the Gaspe peninsula it will secure in those constituencies the unswerving loyalty of these peaceful, law-abiding and industrious people.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: Mr. Speaker, just before the House took recess I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Bona venture (Mr. Marcil) in regard to the railway difficulties that confront his constituency on the Baie de Chaleur. I agree with a good deal of what he says. I am somewhat conversant with the need of railways in that part of the province of Quebec. I know the hardships which the people there have to 
encounter by reason of the existing situation, and I would like to see some relief accorded to them. I do not know that this should come altogether through a steam railway, perhaps the needs of the people would be better served by an electric line; but if the board of directors of the National Railways would take the matter up in a businesslike way and work out the solution somewhat in the manner I have suggested, a railway service might be provided which would help the people of Bona-venture out of their difficulties. They have had a hard time, but they have a fine district down there and they have hope and faith in their country. I should like to see that part of Canada developed equally with other portions which we hope to see ultimately developed and become a great source of benefit to Canada.
Having said that much I am going to take up the time of the House for a little While to-night to discuss two or three questions which I think are of supreme importance to Canada. To begin with, I want to point out to Canadians, and especially to the voters of the Dominion, that the greatest political revolution that has occurred within the past one hundred years is now taking place in every country that has a political system similar to that which we have in the British dominions and that they have in the United States; and the best way to illustrate that revolution is to tell the House what has taken place.
First of all I am going to describe what has taken place in Canada. In 1919 in the province of Ontario the Farmers' party began to organize themselves. They did organize themselves and an election came on. The other parties neglected even to have conventions to discuss the situation, and the result was that this Farmers' party that everybody despised came into office and was there for some time. So much for that. Then, in 1921, Union government ceased to be a factor in Canada. It was dissolved and my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) who now leads the opposition became Prime Minister. He decided that he would ask His Excellency for a dissolution of parliament. His request was granted. He went to the country and came back absolutely in a minority. The Liberals assumed office with a small majority, and out of that came change. But before I go into that I want to refer to another election, that of Mr. Drury in the province of Ontario. He was premier then. He had not been premier and did not hold any office at the time of the previous election. He decided also to go the country. He did so and was not only defeated but his party was almost

The Address-Mr. Maclean {York)
destroyed. The Conservative government then assumed office in Ontario, and that government now administers the affairs of the province. Then there was another election in 1923 in the Mother country. They had abandoned the Union government there a short time before Bonar Law became Prime Minister. Unfortunately he died. The party elected a new leader in Stanley Baldwin, who occupied office for a time when he decided he would go to the country for a mandate. He went to the country for a mandate and he came back without a majority. Labour, a new party came into office and assumed the government, and they are administering it to-day. They are also in a minority, and yet they occupy the Treasury benches. This came about because the leader of that party had the wit when the opportunity came to assume the leadership of the opposition. There was nothing else to do, by reason of what took place, but to have Ramsay MacDonald come into office although his party was in a minority. At any rate, to-day the Conservatives are out of office and the Liberals are weakened. The latter came back divided but since then they have united. Well, this is the outstanding feature of all these elections -that the political revolution has come, and it extends all over the British Dominions, and it has also come to our neighbours in the United States. Out of these elections we have these various parties in Ontario. We still have the Farmers' party, we still have the Liberal party, and we have the Conservative party. Those three are playing the triangle; they are still there to-day. Here in Ottawa, after the last general election, the Liberals came back with a majority. We do not know what they had a few days ago but they are confident now. Thus we have in this House a Conservative party, a Liberal party in office, a Farmers' party, and a Labor party; and instead of playing like Lloyd George upon a triangle this House now is dancing a quadrille with four parties in it. Or to put it another way we have on one side a party playing the fiddle, on the other side a party playing the flute, the Farmers playing the trombone, and the Labour party the big drum. [DOT]
What is going to arise out of all this? The revolution has arrived, and I want to tell my hon. friends that the greatest menace ahead of them is that this state of affairs has arrived and is present. I do not know any party in office to-day in the British dominions that is likely to go to the people that will not have a very hard time in getting back. While there has been a revolution in the British dominions in regard to the political system, a still greater revolution is pending in the United States. There never before was such political excitement in that country as there is to-day. They have there a Republican party in charge of the administration and they can do as they like. They have also a Democratic party. But they have a third party, or rather a third and fourth party, called the Insurgent party. They are made up of insurgent Democrats and insurgent Republicans, and they are the men who are forcing the situation in the United States to-day. That country is in a state of turmoil, and nobody knows what is going to happen; but if there is anything Canada ought to watch with great interest, it is to see what will occur in the election in the United States this coming year. I would not be a bit surprised to see now the present President Mr. Coolidge not taken up by his party. I centainly expect to see an altogether new man as a presidential candidate for the Democratic party; I would be less surprised if a third presidential candidate was put forward, and he might win. It is true that Theodore Roosevelt tried it and he failed, and Mr. Taft came into office and became president; but in view of what^ is going on in the United States I am asking the Canadian people and this Canadian House to watch what is happening there and to watch how this revolution is coming. It will be so surprising and far reaching that nobody can quite tell what will happen. It is well worth watching.
Let me say a word for the new party that has come into office in England. I am not going to apologise for them. I think what has happened there is one of the most promising things that has happened in a long time. Some people say that that party are Reds, Bolshevists, Communists, and they have some other names for them. The best informed man in politics today, so far as I can judge-and I am somewhat of a judge-is Ramsay MacDonald. There is not an abler man in British politics to-day, and the ablest man, from a European point of view, is his Lord Chancellor, Lord Haldane. True, he had to admit some years ago that he was indebted to Germany for his spiritual development, for his education. But I will say this for Lord Haldane, that the greatest thing to his credit in connection with the late war was that he made a fighting machine out of the British army I am now giving the testimony of the best generals in the war, that Lord Haldane made out of the then very poor army Great Britain had, the best fighting machine in the war. Ramsay MacDonald, Lord Haldane, Mr. Clynes, who

The Address-Mr. Maclean (York)
is now leader of the House, the Colonial Secretary, and others who are there-some might think they were men who had been picked off the street-are men of character; they are able to take care of themselves; they are the ablest men in England. The correspondence, printed yesterday or the day before, that was exchanged between the Premier of France and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, has given to the world the hope that peace will come sooner than we expect, and that there will be an adjustment and an improvement. I am going to read to the House a few lines giving the opinion of Stanley Baldwin of this much-despised Labour party in England. It is surprising in a country like Canada to many people who profess to be reformers and others who profess to have no great regard for Communists, Bolshevists, and such people, to hear what Stanley Baldwin says of the party that happens to be in office at present in England.
I should like the House to get the benefit of this. This is the speech that he made the day after he resigned office, a speech that he made to his own followers in the House. He said:
- Our great enemies of the future are not going to be the Liberals, who are moribund, but Labour, which is very much alive. You are not going to beat Labour on a policy of tranquillity, negation or sitting still. There is a vitality in Labour at present in the country, and unless we can share a vitality of that kind we shall be unable to conquer it. Now, to my mind, the strength of Labour arises from two sources.
Then he goes on.
We have in our party no lack of material. We have all over the country young men who would be eager to work with us if they felt that we were no less sincere m our outlook than the Labour party. If they do not feel that, there is nothing that is going to stop the drift to Labour of the young men in the towns. It rests with us; and I would urge very strongly that in the next two or three months, inside our party and in consultation with experts outside, we should examine in the light of the present a number of the pressing problems that have presented themselves since the war, to be examined without prejudice-problems of housing, problems of education, and, almost more important than all, problems of the relationship between master and man anc^ that, having examined these problems, we may reach conclusions which may well form part of our social policy by the time the next election comes.
That is the Labour party that Stanley Baldwin-and he is a very able man-says they have to beat there. When people go around this country and abuse these Reds and call them Socialists, Bolshevists and all that kind of thing, they should remember that these are the men who hold office to-day in England, who have taken over the business of trying to restore prosperity, at least to restore peace, to England. I repeat what I said a few moments ago, that there never before has been a correspondence exchanged in two or three letters that has given as much 
hope to the world as that fine letter written by Ramsay MacDonald to the Premier of France and the reply in an equally honourable and fair-minded way by the Premier of France.
But all this has been carried on by a government in a minority. That is the revolution and some of us do not know it. There will soon be in this country a government carried on by a minority. But how do they do it?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Is the present government not carrying on by a minority?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, but the
great feature of the new system is that it is not by votes and majorities in Houses-and this is taking place all through the United States-it is by arrangements or deals by leaders of parties within the House.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: By good legislation.
Mr. MACLEAN (York :	I am not disputing it; I am saying what is coming, and the members of this House and the people of this country must see it. We have seen it arrive here. When I read that statement of the leader of the Progressive party as it appeared in the press on Saturday last I came to the conclusion at once that possibly there had been some understanding. It was an honourable declaration that if they got what they wanted along Progressive lines certain things would be done. Now, that will be the same attitude in the politics of the world. There will be no longer any two-party system. Such a system does not exist here; we have four parties here, and there are three in England, while there are several in the province of Ontario. The same thing is true in the United States in the political situation that obtains there today. So that what I am saying will be of interest, if not to the members of this House, at least to the people of Canada.
Now I come to the question of redistribution, in connection with which the government promises a measure. Anyone who has been following political tendencies in this country knows, no doubt, that the revolution has come in the province of Manitoba, where they are adopting what is known as the single transferable vote. And we are to have the same thing in this House. With the Progressives behind it that principle may come into force in Canada. And what that transferable vote means hon. gentlemen will discover if they go back to the country for re-election, whenever the time may come. This alternate vote is the principle which

The Address-Mr. Maclean (York)
enables minorities to secure some representation: by the transfer of votes, minorities that heretofore could not enjoy representation in parliament will now have it. In cities like Montreal and Toronto various deals will be made, and under this revolutionized condition which will prevail as a result of the transferable vote no one knows who will be elected; and that is something that confronts my hon. friends on the treasury benches more particularly than it does anyone else. Now, I do not say that I am against the transferable vote. We are to have it in the next Dominion election unless something happens to prevent the principle being adopted. The revolution, I say, has come and if hon. gentlemen do not quite believe in it and are inclined to laugh, let them wait until they go to the country. There is a minority government ruling in England and only a few days ago we had a minority government in office in this country; and with the far-reaching. changes that are imminent in the United States, in the election which is going to take place there we shall no doubt have some surprises which will have some significance to ourselves and our friends and to the prospects of the country. Parliamentary institutions, I am glad to say, do not last; changes come. That is natural, and it is well that it should be so. People thought that they could relegate these things to leaders of parties and that they could ward off these changes. Now, however, the outstanding fact is that the people are supreme, for no party leader can dictate what shall be. If the people want more parties they will have them. They will have as many as they want and no man knows what he is talking about if he gets up here and says that he is not going to allow the two-party system to die, or that he thinks this or the other should be the case; the people will settle all that. .
Let me now deal with the question of the St. Lawrence waterway. There is a percentage of the people of this country who do not like the idea of the improvement of the St. Lawrence waterway. Montreal does not like it. I should think it would be of the greatest benefit to Montreal; and if that city is not satisfied with the improvement of the St. Lawrence waterway the United States will soon make them sit up and understand that the government over there will build a canal from Buffalo to New York which would make New York the absolute port of the western world. So that when the people of Montreal say they do not want to see any improvement of the St. Lawrence, tell them they had better have a care. I believe that it
is in the interest of Canada and in the interest of the United States that the St. Lawrence waterway improvement scheme should be carried out immediately, in the same way that the Panama canal project was carried out to successful completion. That undertaking was the result of an agreement. I might read a few words from Lord Charnwood's Life of Roosevelt. In 1903 Roosevelt wrote:
Panama declared itself independent and wanted to complete the Panama canal and opened negotiations with us. I had two courses open; I might have taken the matter under advisement and put it before the Senate, in which case we should have had a number of most able speeches on the subject, and they would have been going on now and the Panama canal would be in the dim future yet. We would have had a half century of discussion and perhaps the Panama canal. I preferred we should have the Panama canal first and the half century of discussion afterwards.
And the Panama canal was built, not so much by legislation as by negotiation between the two governments. The same thing is needed in this instance. My suggestion in regard to this very necessary undertaking would be to start negotiations immediately with the United States looking to an international agreement. The great thing to be done, however, is to undertake this much-needed improvement immediately. It would provide employment in certain parts of the country and it ought to be carried out at the earliest possible date. The money could all be raised. We no doubt would have to assume half of the cost and the United States half, but there would be no trouble in raising the money, with the assistance of the United States, at a low rate of interest. If that were done the work could be completed within two years and would become the great success which the Panama canal has been. While I should not like to see the hydro-electric power investments of the people of Ontario interfered with, at the same time, if the rights of the province can be safeguarded in that connection, I should be glad to see this project undertaken including the development of water powers. In that way within two years the people of New York state and the people of Ontario and Quebec would have an immense development of water power, which would bring great strength to the manufacturing industries of both countries. Therefore I am strongly in favour of our dealing with this question at an early date.
There is an insistent call for economy of administration, and I have the utmost respect for it. Already there has been a start in this direction, there have been reductions in our national expenditure; but we must insist on still more sweeping reductions, and to this end we must do as they are doing in the
78	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Maclean (York)
United States, we must stop inflation. What five or seven years ago were comparatively . small retail businesses in this country have been converted into big organizations capitalized at absurdly high figures. We have, in common with the United States, an army of profiteers, men who have made immense sums of money, and they are moving heaven and earth in their effort to ensure a continuance of profiteering. They do not want to see deflation come about. But there must be deflation. We cannot keep up the cost of living, and it will have to be reduced, even if the housewives have to go on strike. Deflation must come; and there must be other economies.
Now, I am going to suggest to the government a series of economies-and no one can give a better start in this direction than the government. To begin with my home city of Toronto, we own the street railway system, but under the system of amortization it is necessary to exact a 6|-cent fare. I would suggest that the city authorities postpone the amortization of the street railway debt for a certain time and give the people a 5-cent fare. One or two examples like that will have a markedly beneficial effect on the public. Now let me suggest what the government may do in this direction. Let them put the postage back to pre-war rates; let them make a suggestion to the board of directors of our National Railway system that passenger and express rates be put back to pre-war levels; let them reduce the rates on telegrams. The great thing is to touch the sentiment of the people, and this can be accomplished in no better way than by starting the process of deflation *which I have indicated. Therefore I hope some action will be taken by this House to bring about these reductions. As an old Greek philosopher said, tc be a harpist you must play on the harp; and to touch the imagination of the people we must play in this key, we must inaugurate economies in many directions in the Civil Service, but at the same time we must establish contact with the people at points where they are vitally interested. To do this we must give them some relief in respect to postage, telegraph, express and railway rates. So my suggestion to the House is that if we really believe in economy, if we really believe in deflation, something along this line must be started in order that high prices may be cut down and profiteering be checked. The profiteers have never yet been punished. The country is full of them. Today it is overrun by a new class of profiteer- the bond security seller. I never saw so many men trying to sell bonds all over Canada as 
I see at the present time. Let the inflation in that respect cease for a while.
The vital thing is to get back to normal, and it is hard to accomplish it. When you try to get back to normal you meet with many difficulties, nevertheless you must keep on trying and finally the sun will begin to shine again. Put a little more hope into the people, give them leadership here from Ottawa, not only by economies in the Civil Service and other departments of government, but by encouraging deflation all around. We may have to still further reduce our army. I know some people will be sorry to see our volunteer service reduced, but the Great War was an absolute failure if it does not lead to a better condition of affairs in regard to military establishments.
I come now to taxation and new sources of revenue. I spoke about a revolution in politics, and I want to suggest to hon. members a revolution that is coming in regard to raising our national revenues. Hon, members will probably be surprised and inclined to laugh at first when they hear what I have to say, but I hope to convince them of the feasibility of my suggestion. There are certain things in which we have a monopoly, and I maintain that these monopolies can be used to secure a great national revenue- from some a little, from others a great deal. We have an absolute monopoly of nickel. Practically the world's supply of nickel is contained in about eight square miles near Sudbury. This enormous deposit is no doubt the result of some great geological upheaval in former days, and as far as we know it is the only deposit of its kind in the world. We own it absolutely; but what is taking place? Sir Alfred Mond and his father came to this country twenty years ago and they were the first to grab the Sudbury nickel deposit. They have been taking it ever since over to their refinery at Swansea, and they have turned out in that one refinery all the nickel produced in Europe. I have stated in this House-and I was rebuked by members of a former government for saying it-that Germany all through the war got from the Scandinavian countries all the nickel she wanted, and it all came from Canada. My authority for that statement was the result of an investigation made by a British admiral who visited all these countries. He saw that they had this immense supply of nickel, and he knew that it came from Canada. Probably most of it came from the International Nickel Company, a United States organization which controls three-quarters of the area containing these nickel deposits. We have one company

The Address-Mr. Maclean (York)
here, a new company, which is producing nickel. They say they have not made any money. That is probably true, but I have no doubt that they hope to make it. Nickel is one most valuable metal in the world to-day; it is sought not only for war purposes but for other purposes as well. Nickel contains an undisclosed amount of four very rare metals besides nickel itself, palladium, polonium, platinum and irridium. I have asked from time to time that the information regarding these ingredients be given in this House, but it has never been disclosed to the Canadian people. So this nickel ore has been taken out of the country by Sir Alfred Mond and his friends and smelted at Swansea, the Canadians thus getting nothing in the way of wages. And the same thing is going on in the United States: they are smelting it there and they will not tell us what is the content of the precious metals outside of nickel. As we have the sole supply we should require the payment of a reasonable tax to the people of Canada before this nickel goes out to other countries. In other words, let us make them disclose what they actually have in this ore, and let us put an export duty on it. Nickel steel is the most useful material used in connection with the automotive industry, in fact in the manufacture of every kind of steel. If nickel steel is an absolute necessity to the world and it must be produced in Canada, we can say that it shall be manufactured before it leaves the country and that if others want it they must pay an export duty on it when it goes out. That would be a wise thing to do, and I hope it will be done.
I come now to another important question, that of pulp, pulpwood and paper export. There is no reason why those in other countries who must have our pulp, pulpwood and paper-and they are largely American people-should not pay us an export duty on those materials. Canada could get a large revenue out of that pulp industry and the people of this country would get the benefit of it. Now, the people of the United States have an absolute right to make their own tariff, but I want to tell my friends the farmers down the line here that when the United States impose a prohibitive duty on Canadian wheat going into their country of 35 cents a bushel, and are getting ready to make it 50 cents, the first thing they have to do is to stand up in this House and say, "Yes, Mr. American, you can keep us out of your countiy, but if you want our pulp we are going to make you pay an export duty on it. If you do not like to do that, perhaps you will take down your prohibitive duty on our Canadian wheat." In five years
Canada will control the wheat supply of the world, and the United States and other countries will have to come to us for what they must have. So I suggest that within five years we shall be in a position to place an export duty on wheat, and that there would be no resulting disadvantage to the farmers, but, on the contrary, a benefit. So we have all these arrows in our quiver, and many others if we care to use them.
I am confident that the greatest gold producing country in the world is going to be in northern Ontario and Quebec, and there is no reason why, with the development which will take place within a comparatively few years, we should not derive an immense revenue from the export of gold. Ontario and Quebec would benefit by it very largely. It is time we began to think about these new sources of revenue, especially in view of the attitude of the United States. They are our neighbours and they have been our allies, but they are making the farmers of our West pay 35 cents in order to get a bushel of wheat into their country. Well, we should not be blamed if we said to them, "If you want our pulpwood you will have to pay an export duty on it"; then we can use some of the revenue derived from that source in the protection of our forests, the preventing of fires, the planting of trees and the maintaining of a pulpwood supply. A tax of that kind will not hurt the pulp industry of this country, although they will groan to-morrow when they hear that I have suggested that there should be such an export duty. The pulp industry is growing; the demand in the United States for Canadian paper is becoming enormous. They cannot print their papers over there unless they get pulp from outside their own country, and they have to come to Canada for it. So we cannot be blamed if we should ask them to pay an export duty on the pulp and paper that we send over, until such time as they experience a change of heart and take [DOT] down the tariff wall that they have raised up against our wheat. It may be a crime to make any suggestion as to new policy in this House, but that is a suggested new method of raising revenue.	-
Another thing I would like to see in this country is a great iron industry, and I notice that one of the papers has entered to-day upon a campaign in that direction. So far our iron ores are rather weak and hard to handle, and although we are doing some smelting in our country it does not amount to a great deal. I am going to tell the House and the country what I think is the future of the iron industry. I have been speaking

The Address-Mr. Maclean (York)
about revolutionary methods of various kinds; now the greatest revolution in iron smelting is about to take place, namely, the practice of smelting by electric current. We have an enormous amount of power available on the rivers of the Hudson slope, on the St. Lawrence and elsewhere. In England they are getting ready to burn their coal at the pit heads and to generate electrical current for use in their smelters in the production of iron. If we are alert, we may be producing iron by way of electrical smelters if we have sufficient quantities of ore, and I think we will have that ore in a short time. Hitherto the conditions have been rather discouraging, but I see to-day in a trade paper devoted to these subjects that there are immense stores of iron ore in our country. I leave that question there with my suggestion in regard to what I think will be a great source of revenue, and a great source of compulsion on our neighbours, if we choose to use it, to make them accord fair treatment to the farmers of the West in regard to wheat, if nothing else. I throw out that suggestion, and as I said before, watch what is going to happen in the United States in the coming election. If perchance the Democratic party come into office in the United States in this coming election-and I admit I opposed the reciprocity proposal that was made in this country some years ago-I would not be a- bit surprised if they would come forward with an entirely new trade proposal to Canada, and use that as one reason for removing this objectionable duty on Canadian wheat.
When I was talking about economy I wanted to say this: We must continue to tax luxuries in this country. If we are not taxing them enough, let us tax them more. It will give us revenue. We must also reduce the taxes on the necessities of life.
The third thing I would suggest to the House is this: I would revise the preferential privileges in the Canadian tariff, especially in regard to our sister dominions and the Mother Country. I have heard a great deal of complaint as to the effect of those preferences. I think they might be revised, and I would suggest that they be revised.
Another thing that has got to end, and nobody yet has said it in the House

it remains for me to say it-is this: One of the greatest iniquities ever perpetrated in the United States and Canada during the war was the issuing of tax-exempted bonds, which all fell into the hands of rich men. I do not know how that can be cured. It might involve a breach of contract that Canada could not be a party to, and yet the people of the United 
States and the United States congress, and they are very honourable in their legislation especially in regard to financial obligations, are going to find a way to stop these tax-exempted bonds. I suppose their issuance could be continued in this country yet. Among the economies we may effect, and in order to increase the revenues of this country, let us put an end to issuing tax-exempted bonds. I think they have ceased in the United States, but I am not sure of that. I do not suppose the rich men and the rich companies would be generous enough to make concessions to the country, but a way may be found to get rid of this condition of affairs where rich men and rich companies have millions and millions of tax-exempted bonds in their safes, and yet be fair to the bond holders and be within the law. I am not advising repudiation in any sense, but a way may be found to end that condition, and the people of the United States are trying to solve that problem to-day. We have to solve it too, and we must stop now, once for all, the issuing of tax-exempted bonds. In future any securities issued in this country will have to take the ordinary course. Municipal bonds went out by millions when the opportunity offered to put them out, and national bonds went out by hundreds of millions, all tax-exempt. Probably that was a necessity of the war, but that must continue no longer. It may have ceased, but I do not think so.
Finally, for I do not want to tire the House much longer, I am coming back to the question of bank reform in this country, and I want to tell the House frankly that when I took up this subject last week and made investigations,
I had intended to suggest the introduction of an amendment to the Address
9 a.m. that I thought under the circumstances that existed last week this government would be prepared to accept, but since I have observed what has taken place within the last week, and the certainty almost of the government having the co-operation of my friends from the West, especially if my friends from the West are to get some of the things they desire, I saw it was not quite a wise thing to do, and accordingly I did not draft the amendment, but I am going to tell the House what I propose. What I want to see in this country is the reform of our banking system; it has to come right away, and if the government do not bring it about they will soon hear from the people. I suggest that we should substitute a national or Dominion note issue in place of the bank notes issued in this country. I suggest an absolute withdrawal of the bank notes issued by the banks and the

The Address

Mr. Maclean (York)
substitution therefor of national notes like they have in the United States. I would also suggest that we have what they have in the United States, a Federal Reserve banking system, which is a system of re-discounting for the banks. I have no hostility against the banks in this country at all. I would like to see them increase in number and their capital multiplied, four or ten times for that matter. I would like to see their business increase and the service they can give to the Canadian people increase. There are all kinds of opportunities for the banks to make money in this country, but they have got to sit down with parliament and consent to withdraw their own notes and to substitute therefor national notes. They must also be willing to accept a system of re-discounting for banks, under the same plan that obtains in the United States. Not to weary the House I am going to ask permission to read three short paragraphs I have here, written by a Canadian, as to what occurred in the United States and brought about the reform of their currency law. They are taken from an article on "Woodrow Wilson and his domestic policy." Woodrow Wilson made the greatest record of any man who was in the war. He died the other day but he hoped to bring about the League of Nations. The United States is not yet a party to the League of Nations. For some reason they repudiated their President in regard to that matter but they are coming back to it, and if I correctly interpret what Ramsay MacDonald said in the correspondence that was published a day or two ago the United States will yet come back to the League of Nations. Now let me read what I have here on Woodrow Wilson's domestic policy:
Mr. Wilson came to the White House at a time when all signs foreboded economic disturbance and distress. The Payne-Aldrich tariff law had caused agricultural depression and an equal price level similar to conditions now prevailing in many states as a result of the Fordney-McCumber tariff act. The currency of the country was inelastic with business often demoralized by "currency famines" and "money comers." The credits of the country were absolutely controlled by the private corporations in charge of the reserve banks.
The Wilson administration within a few months created the Federal Reserve Bank system, which brought the credit of the country to the relief of business and provided an elastic currency under government control. This was accompanied by a downward revision of the tariff and followed later on by a rural credit system which has already financed farm mortgage loans to the extent of a billion dollars at a moderate rate of interest and on easy terms of payment.
Had it not been for the Federal Reserve Bank it would have been impossible to finance the great orders for munitions placed by the Allies in the United States before the entrance of that country into the world war, or to have financed the huge expenditures and commitments of the Federal government after America's entrance into the war. There are many who believe that the Federal Reserve Bank system contributed no less toward the winning of the war than did the armed forces sent by America oversea.
Now, that is the American Reserve Bank sj'stem, which is based on national notes and only on national notes, which discounts for all the banks, and which supplied all the money necessary to carry on all those contracts during the war. That system is still in existence there, and they mean to keep it. We in Canada must have not only a national system of currency, but a national reserve bank system such as they have in the United States. We must start to have it this session, and the government will be tried by nothing so much as by what they endeavour to do to meet the views of the farmers. I want to tell them that unless they give the farmers a national note system in place of a bank note system, and unless they give them a national reserve bank) there will be very serious criticism. I want to read just one more paragraph about Woodrow Wilson:
Be that as it may, the Federal Reserve Bank will permanently remain the cornerstone of national finance. The Land Bank system for rural credits will also be a permanent institution.
I want my friends the farmers to note this:
Had Mr. Wilson been able to give more attention to domestic affairs he would have completed his financial programme by establishing a banking system designed to give the farmers of the country the banking accommodations given by the Federal Reserve system to merchants and manufacturers.
That is what we want in this country. We want a national system of banking that will meet the requirements of the farmers and we will not get it from the present banks. In this country there has got to be a great system of national banking, similar to what they have in the United States, for the accommodation of manufacturers and farmers. Let there be equality of treatment. The farmers today are declaring that their great grievance is lack of equality in price levels. There have been low price levels for the farmers, and a high price level for the other people engaged in industry. The same thing obtains in the matter of banking accommodation; there is discrimination. We in this country have an opportunity now to get this relief; to establish a system of national notes and a system of national reserve banks, and the latter will serve the farmers as well as the men who are engaged in commerce and in manufacturing.
I want to see a real reform in banking. The people of Canada have been deprived of the finest national savings banks they ever had. A few years ago the Receiver General's

82	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Maclean (York)
offices in Canada took deposits and gave the people interest on them, and that money was absolutely secure. Somebody strangled those offices throughout almost the whole of Canada. I am informed, and I think correctly, that the Canadian government is still carrying on this national savings bank for the benefit of the people and paying interest on deposits, in the Maritime provinces and in British Columbia. Unfortunately somebody strangled the operation of the Receiver General's office in Toronto, although it was the finest bank we ever had. The people could go into the Receiver General's office, deposit their money, draw interest on it and get that money whenever they wanted it. That change was not made by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), and I do not know what minister in the former government did it. However it was done and the people of Canada, especially in the province of Ontario, have been deprived of this fine savings bank system. I want to see that national savings bank restored immediately as security for the people who entertain some doubt in regard to their bank deposits.
There is another thing I want to see carried out, and I am going to put the matter up to the government now. We must modernize our savings banks in connection with our post offices. Nobody who has a, deposit in one of these banks can get his money when he wants it. He has to sign a form * which must be sent on to Ottawa and checked up, and it is a week or more before he gets his money. I want to see the Canadian people given the right to get their money whenever they want it, not in the form of currency but a cheque which will be cashed by any bank. The people want a return to the savings bank system we formerly had in this country; they want the right to deposit their savings in a bank controlled by the government. The Drury government in Ontario did one good thing when they established what they called Ontario government savings offices. They took in millions of deposits there and those savings offices are in existence yet. The present provincial gov-vemment is talking about winding up that system, but I would advise Mr. Ferguson not to do that until he sees whether the Dominion government will not revive the system of national savings banks that obtained in connection with the Receiver General's offices, representing the treasury of this country.
And now I want to say another thing as to what is going on in the United States. The government of that country to-day are paying 
anybody 5 per cent on any deposit he likes to make with them. And they pay him immediately in the best money in the world, in national notes of the United States. During the war, and since, this system has gradually become, by reason of the improvements introduced by Woodrow Wilson, a splendid one. The finest banking system in the world to-day is in the United States. It is based on national notes, it will rediscount to the banks, it will take money on deposit from anybody in the country, and interest to the amount of 5 per cent is paid. The system has been such a success that it is making the banks over there somewhat concerned.
I want to conclude by making [DOT] another quotation. I thought I had the letter here but I cannot put my hand on it for the moment. However, I may say that I received a letter from a gentlemen for whom I have great respect. He knows all about the losses that have occurred in this country in connection with the Home Bank. I want to tell the House what he says:	The absolute
fraud	in connection with the	present
Bank Act of Canada is that the deposits in a wrecked bank are first grabbed to pay for the note issue of that bank. For that reason this parliament must do something for the people who have that grievance against the Bank Act of Canada. I do not know whether they can make out a case or not; but that is the point, that millions of the depositors' money in the Home Bank are to-day going to discharge the notes issued by that bank. This has occurred in a great number of cases in the past, and it must be cured. I wish the acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) was here; I would put the question straight to him now:	Does he intend to stop
that kind of business in this country, that when money is deposited by people in a bank, the first grab that is made on that money when trouble comes to the bank is to take up the bank notes that have been issued by that bank? That is what we are up against, and we all have to _ face depositors in that bank. We get letters every day about the matter.
The province of Quebec has had two troubles of that kind, the Provincial Bank and La Banque Nationale. It also had a good deal of trouble from a company known as La Machine Agricole, and an immense amount of securities was floated amongst the innocent people of Quebec and other parts of this country. For some reason or another Quebec has undertaken to issue $15,000,000 of the bonds of the province to take care of the people that lost their money in those bad securities and
The Address-Mr. Maclean (York)
the people who lost their money in those two banks. I want to say to the depositors in the Home Bank that they have a good reason to present to this government why something should be done for their relief, in that the province of Quebec has come to the relief of its own people who have suffered to the extent of $15,000,000 in those banks and the company by which so much money was extracted from the people of that province. It may, perhaps, be an unfair thing to ask of the government; but some consideration must be paid to the people of this country, and first of all some consideration must be paid to the reforming of. the banking laws, as I pointed out tonight. This sort of thing must stop. Why should we have any more bank notes in this country when we can get good, clean national notes such as we have? Is there any note so good in Canada to-day as the one dollar bill or the two dollar bill? It goes everywhere and every American will take such bills; but the minute you offer them a five dollar bill and they see that it is a travelling photograph album of the man who happens to be general manager or president of the bank, they will not take it.
There is another matter and, perhaps, the House and the government are not aware of it. The greatest crime is this: We have a national issue of notes and we issue notes of $5,000 and $10,000. The banks get them-I know they get them-and they go and deposit them in a central gold reserve in Montreal. Having deposited them there, they go out and reissue their own notes in the place of their national notes. They humiliate the national note, your note, the note of your nation, by saying that it is a discredited thing. Eventually the money has to be paid; but their notes go out, and that is the security that the depositor has, when the best note in the world, a note issued on the credit of the people, a note that would have gone everywhere, has its place taken by this bank note. That is taking place every day. Is the Minister of Finance going to stop it? Would it not be a good thing for our people to have a five dollar bill, or a ten dollar bill, or a hundred dollar bill, or a five thousand dollar bill of the government of Canada? But you cannot get them. We have issued them; but the banks have them all: the banks have silenced them, and in place of them they have issued their own notes. That is what the depositors in our banks have to take when they come to get their money.
I am going to conclude by just referring to this condition in regard to the banks. I have
6i
no hostility towards the banks. I want to see them make money, to prosper; but I want to see them give an absolutely secured service to the people of this country who are not getting it now. In the United States they have the finest system of national notes, the finest system of bank rediscount. They are taking the deposits of the people and they are giving them 5 per cent. If you are a depositor and 3rou want to secure your money in this country-and again I say I am sorry the acting Minister of Finance is not present- if you are doubtful about your bank deposits in this country, all you have to do is to go and deposit them in the United States, and you will actually get the security of the United States that when you want that money you will get it and you do not have to take the note of a bank that may not be able to pay its way. There are millions of securities held by the ban,ks even in this country, but there are millions of bank notes out that might be questioned any day, and unless the government is not careful to preserve the standing of such issues, in view of those things that are taking place and those revolutions that are going on, I do not know what will happen.
I want to tell the Prime Minister that if he does not consider this bank situation, his sojourn in the land of promise will not be very long. He is in the land of promise now. The Farmers have come to his relief; they have taken him on trial, and they are going to give him a close examination. They will check up the delivery of the goods every night. I do not know who the checker up is, but he will be an important man in the Progressive party. He will check up every night to see if the goods have been delivered, and if they are not delivered, something will happen. In the meantime, I would suggest that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance should take up the banking reforms that are called for in Canada. They thought they had accomplished something last year when they put through the Bank Act. They did something, but they did not do enough. No bank should object to inspection. While I am speaking of inspection, I want to mention another thing that obtains in the United States where they have these good things. Under their National Reserve Bank system every bank must be what is called a "member bank," and that practically submits them to the inspection and criticism of their fellow members. There is thus the most careful system of banking in the United States there ever was in any country. That being the case, we should follow it. We are following
84	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Maclean (York)
the Americans in many things. We can afford to follow them in these things.
I apologise to the House for taking up its time to-night. In the short speech which I have made to-night, I have endeavoured to bring to the attention of this House and still more of the people of Canada the need there is for a greater exercise of economy from the bottom up, and the still greater reason why we should not only talk about economy but begin to practise it in this House. The government should practise it in regard to not only the Civil Service, but many other things, and it should endeavour to secure the relief I have outlined to-night in regard to postage, telegraph charges, radway fares and things of that description.
Let us just show a disposition in parliament to set an example of economy; let us deflate the awful wind that is in so many of the commercial organizations of the country; let us economise in every direction wherever economy is practicable. There is a new element in the electorate of the country to-day, and that is the woman's vote. It is getting to be equal to that of the men. In England every woman of thirty may vote. They are claiming the right to vote at the age of twenty-one and they ought to have that right. We have the woman's vote to consider in this country and at the next election, under the transferable vote system, no one knows what is likely to happen. If we do not get up on our toes and show some consideration for some of the matters I have brought to the attention of the House, I think it will go very hard with some of the politicians who may then be appealing to the country. The day of absolute majorities in deliberative assemblies has gone by. Parliaments and legislative bodies generally will now be composed of different groups, and these parties will make deals just in the same way as they have done in the United States. Over there they are carrying out great economy involving hundreds of millions, and it is being made possible by arrangement between the leaders of the different parties. I do not call such an arrangement dishonest, but the fact remains that this is just what is being done. Arrangements of this kind are prevalent in the provinces and elsewhere, and we may see surprising things now that the political revolution has come. Let no one tell me that because we have a political revolution we shall have disaster. It is the will of the people in any event, and this is a democratic country. I have always been a democrat and I am a democrat to-day. A Conservative can be a good democrat, especially in relation to

the policies that prevail here; and so can a Liberal. The day of democracy has arrived, and when hon. gentlemen go to the country for re-election they had better see to it that their compass is adjusted in keeping with the change that has taken place.


Mr. A. J. LEWIS (Swift Current):: It is
with a great deal of pleasure that I have listened to the interesting address delivered by the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Maclean, York). I cannot say that I altogether agree with his pessimism or with the novel way in which he wishes to raise taxation. However, he has suddenly opened my eyes to one thing. I have often wondered why so many people went to the United States; now I know. I have heard a splendid eulogy of the different systems that prevail to the south, and apparently, in comparison with Canada, they are much superior to our own. Of course, in that respect I do not agree with the hon. gentleman, but I do think that some of the things that he has said are worthy of our attention, especially in regard to some of the means of raising revenue for the country. I do not think that the hon gentleman's prophecy concerning wheat in Canada in five years' time will come true. We all know that Russia, that great agricultural country of Europe and Asia, is steadily coming back and always will be a great factor in the world's market for wheat. For that reason I do not think that the time will ever come in Canada when we shall have a complete monopoly of the situation and be able to charge just what we please for our commodity. I do think, however, in view of the situation in Canada, that it might be necessary to prevent the export of pulpwood to the nation to the south of us. I am speaking entirely for myself in this matter.


Lewis Herbert Martell: You are becoming a protectionist.


Arthur John Lewis: Not at all; but I remember
coming to this country twenty-one years ago and taking particular observation of the great forests I passed through in going to the West; and during the past few years, coming to Ottawa and going back again, I have been comparing my recent observations with those of twent5r-one years ago and I find that all along the railway tracks those great forests have been depleted, not only by those who have gone in to cut wood but also by forest fires. It seems to me, when we talk about our vast resources and their development and about utilizing them to our own advantage, that these resources belong not only to us but to our children and our children's children,

The Address-Mr. Lewis
and there should be some method of safeguarding the great forests we have in Canada for the generations that are to come. I therefore consider it quite legitimate that we should put an export duty on the large amount of pulpwood that is going to the United States at the present time. In my opinion there is a great deal of waste, both in the United States and in Canada, in the use of paper. One may pick up a weekly newspaper and see sometimes from thirty-six to perhaps seventy pages which, so far as the items of real news interest are concerned, might very well be condensed into six or seven pages. Instead, about seventy pages are wasted, and that means a tremendous inroad into a great national heritage which has been given us by Providence. An export duty on pulp-wood would possibly remedy this wastefulness which is taking place to-day.


William Findlay Maclean: One convert.


Arthur John Lewis: Now, Mr. Speaker, I listened yesterday with a great deal of interest to the speeches both of the leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), and frankly, to say the least, 1 was quite disappointed, not with regard to the manner in which those speeches were delivered nor altogether from the standpoint of their subject matter or the outlook which both hon. gentlemen had upon the Dominion at large; but I was disappointed to know that it was possible for such conditions to have existed in the party politics of this country. I can quite understand that if the revelations were even partially true the extravagance of the past has to a large extent been the means of bringing the Dominion into its present situation. I believe the time has arrived when great national leaders should not, as it were, be washing the dirty linen of party politics, and that in the present national crisis we should have from them speeches outlining great reforms, somewhat similar to what we may observe in Great Britain at the present time, speeches presenting solutions of the problems which confront our people, and so help to bring about that peace which is the rightful heritage of this wonderful land.
My leader has very adequately covered the whole situation in regard to the Progressive viewpoint, and therefore it will not be necessary for me to enter into any details with respect to the subjects he dealt with, although I do wish to speak on some of the problems confronting us in the West. I think our leader is to be congratulated on the comprehensive manner in which he discussed the
situation I also admired the candour and courage of the member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth), who very often stands alone but is not afraid to voice his convictions, and who it seems to me, stands out sometimes like a prophet of old and reveals conditions as he finds them in our national life.
I think the Speech from the Throne is the best that I have heard since I became a member of this House. It is comprehensive in its treatment, and I think it truly describes the conditions obtaining to-day in this country. I was glad to find the subject of tariff reduction mentioned. It is, of course, a subject on which everyone can speak, to a certain extent, with ease, but I wish to say to my constituents at home and to the people of Canada generally that I do not believe that even tariff reductions are a panacea for all the ills from which we are suffering, although it is a step in the right direction. I was pleased to note that there would probably be a reduction of the tariff on implements. It may be true that certain of our implement manufacturers have lost a great deal of money and have gone out of business; but it is also true that thousands of farmers, who also had large investments in land and equipment, have been similarly unfortunate and lost all their capital, and there is no reason why fifty-two per cent of our population should be made to suffer for the sake of a few.
But it seems to me that the manufacturers have aiready anticipated the promised tariff reduction, because long before I came East it was stated by the imp'ement agents in the West that the prices of implements had gone up at least ten per cent. Even if the government were to place agricultural implements on the free list the price to the farmer would be just the same as heretofore unless the dumping clause is repealed.
Of course, this tariff reduction will remove a grievance which the West has had against the East, and this in itself is I think a splendid thing. It has always been a grouch with the western farmer, a grouch which has always troubled the Liberal or any other party in the West, and the removal of this grievance will go a long way to bring the people together in that national unity which we so much desire.
With regard to the economic outlook in the West, it is quite true, and nobody in this part of the House wishes to deny it, that we have had the most bountiful crops. Providence has helped to solve the problem of removing our difficulties. And if it could be

The Address[DOT]-Mr. Lewis
said of the government and of the capitalistic interests that they had done their share to that end we would be considerably nearer that prosperity which is so desirable. But when we as a people compare the prices in the reports that come to us from Ottawa, which show that so far as the farmers' commodities are concerned the ratio between what we sell and what we buy is 100 to 159 per cent, treating 100 as the basis before the war. If' it was difficult for the farmer to make a profitable living before the war on a 100 to 100 per cent basis, it will be readily seen how impossible it is for him to do so when the basis is 100 to 159 per cent. So, for that reason, some means must be devised whereby this discrepancy can be removed and prices of commodities which we have to purchase brought down to the pre-war basis if we are to become prosperous or even to remain on the land.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) mentioned that as a result of the failure of the wheat board legislation we were endeavoring to form a wheat pool to market our wheat. This is quite true, and a great many people believe that it will help us considerably, but I do not think we should be too sanguine of the results that may be obtained. We may be able to save a few cents by this method, but when we come to scan the world's economic and industrial position at the present time it appears to be impossible for us to raise the price of wheat in the world's market to any great extent. Take the position of Great Britain to-day; she buys the largest amount of our grain. At the present time her industries are almost at a standstill. It is reported that on the Clyde where sixty great shipbuilding yards used to employ over 96,000 people, today only about one-half of the yards are in operation with only one-third of the men in employment. As the result of the nonrecovery of Europe Great Britain's manufacturing output to-day is not 50 per cent of what it was in pre-war times. So just as long as we have these conditions in Europe we cannot expect to increase the world's market price of grain. Therefore the solution for our troubles is not to be found in that direction. Pending the recovery of Europe, which will take a long time, there is something that Canada can do, and it is this I wish to emphasize to-night. I remember reading a statement which was supposed to have been made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). Dealing with the much-needed branch lines in the West- of which I shall speak later-I understand ^Mr. Lewis.]
that he said in Moose Jaw, referring to the Senate:	We are waiting for the Lord to
reform the Senate by death, but He has not been working very hard. I do not think it is much good waiting for Providence to solve all our problems; we ought to be able to take some steps ourselves towards their solution. When we go into the costs of production we find that in the case of the farmer these costs are too great.
When I was coming down to the opening of the provincial legislature in Regina, I happened to meet one of the members there. He did not know me, and he did not know I knew him, and began to speak of the farming situation in this country. He said something like this:	It is not the fault of the government or of our present system; it is due to the false position of the farmer on the land. It is impossible, he contended, for any man with a family to moke the farm pay if he goes on in the way that he does at present. Thirty or forty years ago in Ontario we lived on the farm; we never went to the town; we manufactured all our own things; and he had come to the conclusion that no Britisher, no Canadian, could really live on the farm and that the best thing to do would be to get people from Europe who could go on the land and stay there, who would never go to the town or to a picture show. Well, if that is the real economic foundation of living on the farm to-day, then I say that it is far better for us as a nation to go out of agriculture. But I believe that it is possible to live on the farm and have a comfortable existence if the conditions are made right. The first thing I would emphasize is the necessity for a reduction in freight rates. I do not see why it should not be provided in legislation that from the time the farmer places his grain on the car until it reaches the point nearest its destination it should not be interfered with, thus avoiding a great many charges, and if that is done there is no reason why the freight rate should not be lowered.
It was pointed out by my leader (Mr. Forke) that there should be a revaluation of the railways. We shall never make the Canadian National Railways pay on the basis of the purchase price. I have for two years urged in this House that this be done, and I believe it is the only business procedure to follow. Let us revalue the lines, put them on a business basis, and then I am confident that in competition with the Canadian Pacific or any other railway we can carry the farmers' wheat much cheaper than we are doing at the present time.

The Address-Mr. Lewis
A few months ago some of the farmers in my district decided to send a car of turkeys to Toronto. I understand that a car of coal can be sent from Alberta to Toronto for $400, yet when they shipped that carload of turkeys and sent a man along with them it cost in the neighbourhood of $1,200. Why the discrimination? As long as conditions of this kind exist we shall never be able to make farming pay.
Just here I would like to say a word in regard to diversified farming, as it is called. How many of our farmers would succeed under present market conditions if they all went into diversified farming? I have spoken to the dean of the University of Saskatchewan on this subject, and he expresses the view that diversified farming is our only salvation. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) has gone all over the country and he tells us the same thing; he can point to men in almost every district who have gone into this kind of farming and have succeeded in greater or less degree. But if every farmer in the district attempts to do the same thing, what is the result? Why, there is no market. Let me give you an instance: The cry was raised that we should go into the raising of chickens, turkeys, and so on; the year after some of the women on the farms did go into it and they got 25 to 35 cents a pound for their poultry. This year nearly every farmer's wife in the district did her best to raise turkeys, and the result was that some of them got as low as 11 cents a pound. If a breast bone happened to be a little crooked, 5 cents a pound was taken off; if in killing the bird they broke the wing, it went by default; anyway, the farmer got nothing for it. I do not know who got it. Now, I am not running farming down, but I want to show you the conditions. In our district we decided that we would give $5 to different high school boys who would stay on the farm and show how much they could make with it. I know one boy who with his $5 bought three ducks, one drake and a dollar's worth of food. He was able to raise thirty-four number one prime ducks. He looked after them the whole year, then he made a box and shipped them down to Pat Burns; and in return for all his work he got the magnificent sum of $2.90 over and above the purchase price. Do you think you are going to interest educate4 boys on any basis of that kind? These /ittle instances may not amount to much but they impress our educated youths and cause them to decide to divert their energies into some more profitable channel. Therefore I would impress upon the government the need for reducing the costs of production. I may point out that I have one instance where, of
the total sum received for a number of turkeys, the commission man got one-quarter, freight consumed one half, and the man who raised them got the other quarter. How can we continue diversified farming under conditions such as these? I believe the time is coming when the great leaders in Canada should get together, and, not in the spirit of party politics, a spirit which was displayed here last night; not in revealing terrible conditions as we heard them revealed, but with the interests of the people only in view, should sit down and devote their best abilities to arriving at some solution of our problems which will have the effect of bringing about contentment and prosperity.
I believe that the development of any important outlet for our grain and other commodities should receive attention, and I am of the opinion that the Vancouver harbour improvements, which have received a great deal of support from this government, will be highly beneficial to the West. I would like to mention also in passing that the Hudson Bay railway is a necessity. Of course we do not know whether or not it will be a success, but there is one thing that I think the western people deserve: they have been promised this railway and until it is tried out in actual experience no one in this House has any right to say that it will be a failure, I believe that the Hudson Bay railway will be one of the greatest benefits to our farmers in the West.
In regard to this question of diversified farming, I have an article which has some bearing upon the subject. We know that the embargo has been lifted from the export of cattle from this country to England. What price do we get for the finest quality beef at the present time? Three and four cents, and under present conditions it is not being raised at a profit, and any profit we might have on the British market has been swallowed up by the steamship companies. I do not see why this thing cannot be broken. Why, I understand the cost has been raised from $15 to $25 per head. It has been said by a notable authority that cattle can be carried overseas at $10 per head. The difference between $10 and $25 would make all the difference in the world to the cattle raisers in the West, and I think the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), who claims that he has the western situation at heart, should see to it and by every means in his power endeavour to break that monopoly which seems to exist in the shipping industry at the present time. I do not like to call down our merchant marine. It cost $70,000,000 of the Canadian people's money, but if we cannot break the

The Address-Mr. Lewis
combine in any other way, let these vessels be converted and be put on the ocean, and let us show to the world that these cattle can be carried overseas at the minimum rate per head. That is the only way I think in which we can solve some of the difficulties.
Now I want to speak for a moment or two in regard to the branch lines. I understand that the government is bringing down once again this year the three-year programme. I do not think this government has any right to prejudice the case of the branch lines in the West or in the East by bringing down a programme which they know will possibly not pass the Senate. The Senate has been blamed for a great many things. Possibly the Senate did right last year in stopping the programme of three years. We have in this parliament eveiy year an estimate for the Welland canal, for instance. It was estimated in the first place that the Welland canal would cost possibly $70,000,000. That estimate was later increased and I was told by one of the ministers that it might reach the sum of $100,000,000, but the government has never so far come to parliament and asked us to pass $100,000,000 to cover the work over a series of years on the Welland canal. They have asked us to pass eight or seven or eleven million dollars from year to year for the maximum amount of work that can be carried on that year. Why cannot we deal with the branch lines in the same way? Let the government come down with an appropriation in the railway estimates for branch lines and ask for a sufficient amount to carry on the maximum amount of work that can be done this year. I am quite sure that if that were done this parliament, every part of it, would vote the money gladly, and even though it may take three years to finish the work once it is begun, there is no reason why this parliament should not vote from year to year sufficient money to carry on the programme. For that reason I sincerely hope that instead of prejudicing the case by bringing forward a three-year programme, or trying to reform the Senate if it needs reforming, the government will bring in a programme for one year that will appeal not only to members of the House but to members of the Senate as being constitutional in procedure, and then I believe that the West and the East will get our much needed railways. I have a little clipping here in which the hon. Minister of Agriculture throws the whole blame upon the Senate. He may be correct in his judgment, but at the same time I hope there will be no failure this year, and that the much needed branch lines in the West and in the East will not be pre-
judiced by unconstitutional, if it is unconstitutional, procedure.
We heard a great deal last night in regard to our national outlook, in regard to the burdens of our country which to a large extent are post-war in their nature,
10 p.m. but any student of the great war and of subsequent history will admit that Canada has been very fortunate and that we have passed through the reconstruction period possibly better than any other country in the British Empire. I look with a great deal of optimism to the future. I do not see why we who have been more fortunate than any other country in the British Empire in that respect should be pessimistic in regard to the ultimate lifting of the great burden of taxation on the people. It is stated that we have a huge national debt, but should we despair when that debt is smaller than that of any other country in the British Empire? The national debt of Canada, per capita, is $270.12, as compared with $359.60 for Australia, $811.90 for New Zealand, $533.05 for South Africa, and approximately $850 for Great Britain. Why if il is possible for Ramsay MacDonald to look forward with hope and optimism to solving the problem in Great Britain where the national debt per capita is almost four times greater than our own, is it not possible for our public men with their brains and capacity and their national love for Canada to solve a much less problem? I believe that it can be done, and I hope that the best men of the nation will get together and see to it that nothing shall stand in the way-no political party, no interference of any kind. Let the solving of that problem become one of the greatest issues before this parliament at the present time.
In conclusion, I just wish to say a few words in regard to immigration. Last year I spoke at length on the Immigration Bill that passed through the House, and I think I took a very moderate attitude at that time. I want to say that as far as my own municipality and my own constituency are concerned, we need men to fill up the gaps made by those who have left. I went to the clerk of my municipality before coming down here. We had a splendid crop and I asked him, "What is the auditor's report in regard to the residents of this municipality?" He said, "There are eighty less residents than we had last year." Eighty less residents in that one municipality. That is very disheartening in regard to schools, in regard to churches, in regard to the village life and the social life of the community. We must change these

Privilege-Mr. Macdonald, (Pictou)
conditions so that our men, the finest brawn that can be found possibly anywhere in the world, can stay and live at home with us. I believe that these men are superior in every way to any people you can bring into this country, I do not care where they come frcm, and the people who live here and belong to this country have the right to the first consideration on the part of any government in this country. I trust that these vacant places will be filled up in such a way that our schools and our churches and our village life will go on in the way it has been going on in the past. I hate to see great stretches of our country devastated as a result of people leaving us and though I believe that as a result of the good crop the people are in much better circumstances than before, having received the benefit of the crop, yet a great many of them were so deeply in debt that they saw no way of recovering themselves and many moved out while they had the opportunity and while the going was good. I believe that so far as the farmer is concerned, although he may not have more money at the present time, he has paid some of his back debts. But what I do say is this, that our bank collectors and other collectors have been on the scene ever since the noise of a good crop went out, and they have collected almost to the last farthir.g, and they have left the farmer in some instances in pretty poor circumstances. But with a continuance of good crops and a continuation of the good treatment of the people by Providence we may be able, in the course of a number of years, to overcome the existing situation. I think the problem can be solved much more quickly than by merely waiting for the effect of good crops. We can remove the drawbacks that are detrimental to the great basic industry of our national life. But acompaning this there must be prudent action in our homes, in our villages, in our municipalities, and in our governments provincial and federal. There must be mutual co-operation between the people and their representatives in the direction of helping to bring about a reduction in the cost of living and a return of peace, happiness and prosperity is assured to this great Dominion.
On motion of Mr. Marler the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 10.04 p.m. until 3 o'clock p.m. Thursday.
Thursday, March 6, 1924