1924-03-14

SUPERVISION OF RADIO

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: I should like to bring to the attention of the government a matter of urgent general interest to the general public. In the New York Times of March 12, its Washington correspondent makes this announcement.
More effective governmental supervision of radio communication, including authority to defeat attempts to monopolise the ether, was recommended to the House Committee on Merchant Marine to-day by Herbert Hoover, Secretary of Commerce.
Secretary Hoover, in his address, gave his approval to the purposes of the pending White bill, which aims to prohibit monopoly of radio communication, allowing the Interstate Commerce Commission to review the rates charged for such service and laying down drastic regulations governing the issuance of licenses by the Secretary of Commerce for the operation of broadcasting stations.
Is such provision for the protection of the public being made by the government of Canada? I would ask the acting Prime Minister (Mr. Graham) to let the public know whether any proposal looking to a monopoly of radio communication has been made in Ottawa.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Acting Prime Minister): The question of radio is not only new, but intricate, and I would not care to give an answer offhand. As a matter of law and of practice, the management of radio is in the hands of a branch of the Marine department. Licenses are issued; regulations are in force at the present time; inspection takes place; and a small fee is paid, of course, largely for the purpose of paying for this inspection. There has been communication, whether it has been of late or not, between the governments as to the proper control of radio, as there have been or are likely to be so many broadcasting stations that the conflict of the air waves interferes with proper communication.



PRIVILEGE-MR. MEIGHEN

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much to have to rise to a question of privilege. I have observed in an address given by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. d'Anjou) in this House on the 10th instant, words which attribute to me language as respects which I want to make contradiction.
I will read or attempt to read the exact language of the hon. member as it appears at page 197 of Hansard:
Le chef de 1'Opposition ne veut pas se rappeler qu'il a ete le principal insulteur de notre province et de notre race et que les partisans qui se tenaient a ses cotes fai-saient la meme sale besogne. Qu'il n'oublie pas une chose: les electeurs de la province de Quebec, toujours fideles a leur devise, se souviennent. Ils se souvien-dront qu'au cours de la Grande Guerre si nous avons connu des jours de tristesse et de deuil nous les devons au chef de l'Opposition et a son parti; ils se souvien-dront, d'autre part, qu'ils peuvent avoir confiance au chef du parti liberal, l'honorable premier ministre, qui a su garder son bon sens alors que presque tous ses compatriotes perdaient la tete pendant la guerre, et qui, fidele a ses principes, 6tant Canadien avant tout, a su se ranger aux cotes de ceux qui voulaient prot^ger leur pays avant de ddfendre l'Empire.
I have read all, that the context might be seen and no injustice done. I will read the translation as I make it:
The leader of the opposition does not wish to recall that he has been the principal insulter of our province and of our race and that the partisans who cling to his side engaged in the same dirty work. Let him not forget one thing: the electors of the province of Quebec, always faithful to their motto "Remember". They will remember that in the course of the great war if we experienced days of sadness and of mourning we owe it to the leader of the opposition and to his party. They will remember, on the other hand, that they can have confidence in the leader of the Liberal party, the hon. Prime Minister, who has preserved his good sense when almost all his compatriots lost their heads during the war, and who, faithful to his principles, being a Canadian before all else, has ranged himself on the side of those who desire to protect their country before defending the Empire.
It is to the first feature alone that I have a right to refer on this occasion, that which ascribes to me an insult to the province of Quebec and to the French-Canadian race. I only desire to say that no words of mine were ever spoken or can be found uttered in this House or out of this House in my entire public or, indeed private life, that afford the slightest foundation for the grave, and I had almost said, base, allegation of the hon. member for Rimouski. This denial I have made repeatedly, and in the whole carnival of calumny on this question no one has ever attempted to substantiate the allegation, so far as I have ever seen, by quotation from my words. The next is more brief:
Le chef de l'opposition semble vouloir agir de la meme fagon que sir John-A. Macdonald; il vient dans notre province flagorner notre clerg6 apres 1'avoir fait insulter.
The leader of the opposition seems to wish to adopt the same methods as Sir John A. Macdonald; he come3 into our province to toady to our clergy after having insulted them.
I can scarcely find words to describe this language. My only right, however, is to deny the allegation as I now do in the strongest possible terms. I can hardly conceive the type of mind which would ascribe that conduct to any person without the slightest foundation in fact. One more sentence:

Hudson Bay Railway
II a oublie qu'il fait partie de cette ligne de fanati-ques qui travaillent a rabaisser autant que possible 1'element canadien-frangais et qui tachent d'ecraser tous ceux qui ne partagent pas leurs opinions.-
He has forgotten that he is a member of that league of fanatics who labour to crush as far as possible the French-Canadian element, and who seek to wipe out all those who do not agree with their opinions.
I do not know what league is referred to.
If the hon. member would be more specific my denial could also be equally specific. I only say that I am a member of no league at all, either in this country or in any other, nor am I a member of any secret society, neither am I a member of any order, nor have I ever been.
BANFF PARK WATER POWER On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary):: Can the Minister of the Interior (Mr. StewarO inform the House what action if any has been taken with respect to the application for water power privileges in the Banff National Park?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: There is before the department an application on behalf of the Calgary Power Company, but nothing has been done in the matter; no definite conclusion has been arrived at.
RUSSIAN TRADE DELEGATES On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Does the government's reception of
the trade delegates from Soviet Russia mean the recognition of the Soviet Republic? Does the recognition by England of Soviet Russia involve recognition by Canada?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Acting Prime Minister):	That is a large constitutional
question, which I think will be referred later to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). At this moment the gentlemen to whom my hon. friend refers are in this building. I have had a conversation with them and with some of my colleagues have received the delegates and discussed trade matters with them. As to recognition of Soviet Russia, I do not know what such recognition on the part of England means so far as Canada is concerned; but in relation to the question of trade, I can only say that we are doing business on our own hook.
HUDSON BAY RAILWAY On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly and Vercheres):: I want to call the attention of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) to an editorial that appears in the Montreal Gazette of to-day in which Mr. A. E. Warren, general manager of the Canadian National Railways, western region, is reported as stating that the Minister of Railways has ordered full speed ahead on the Hudson Bay railway. Is this statement correct, and has such an order been given?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	I am glad that my
hon. friend has called my attention to this matter because the definition of the phrase "full speed" may not be fully understood.


Arthur Meighen: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) has defined what that means.


Mr. GRAHAM:: I am afraid this definition might not answer this query. Last year, as hon. gentlemen will remember, a certain sum was voted to rehabilitate or to repair and put in operating condition a certain portion of the Hudson Bay railway that has deteriorated during the past few years The estimate having gone through the House late, as nearly all estimates do under our system, very little of that money was expended. I had a conversation with Mr. Warren the other day concerning the matter with a view to taking some steps to expend a certain amount of money that I proposed to put in the estimates, and I believe the Canadian National Railways would be justified in proceeding with the work as soon as possible, trusting to the estimate going through the House.



LOBSTER FISHERIES REGULATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. J. DOUCET (Kent, N.B.):: Have
representations been made to have the lobster fisheries regulations for the district of South Kent and Westmoreland in the province of New Brunswick altered, changing the date of August 16 to August 1 of each year? If so, what decisions has the Department of Marine and Fisheries arrived at in the matter?


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: A petition has in fact been received by the Department of Marine and Fisheries in connection with this matter but no definite action has so far been taken.



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, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Sutherland, resumed from Thursday, March 13.
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Lapointe
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I desire first of all to offer my
congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address. These hon. gentlemen had a fine document to comment upon and I think they have availed themselves splendidly of that opportunity. I may remark also, before I go further, how pleased I am and the members of the government are at the manner in which the Speech from the Throne has been received by the country.


An hon. MEMBER:: By Brantford?


Ernest Lapointe: I expected that; I shall come to the point in a moment. The Speech from' the Throne has received the commendation of all friends of progressiveness and of those who desire to uphold in Canada liberal ideas, liberal principles and liberal policies.


Mr. STEVENS:: There is still a suspicion over here.


Ernest Lapointe: On the other hand, it
has been criticised by those who belong to a different school. Let me confess to my hon. friends opposite that there are some expressions of approval which I would rather not receive because they would cause me to doubt the correctness of my own line of action. My hon. friends need not point to any member on this side. I am not aware that any supporter of the government has said that he is going to vote against the Address; quite the contrary. I am not surprised at the disappointment of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and his associates. The announcements made by His Excellency in his Speech, including the promise of a balanced budget at the end of the present fiscal year, are a decisive answer to the campaign which they have been waging throughout the country during the last six months. The citadel of misrepresentation, so industriously built up by speakers and writers in that pen-and-mouth disease which has raged throughout Canada-that citadel has crumbled. My right hon. friend in his speech on the Address-which was clever, as are all his speeches-obviously expressed the policy of his party, but it was singularly uninspiring. His speech was great in small things, and small in great things. What ray of hope is set before the eyes of young Canadians; what spirit of confidence did he place in their minds and hearts; what message of faith did he deliver to them? Nothing, Sir; nothing but dismay and bitterness. The right hon. gentleman, trying to throw ridicule on the Speech from the Throne, said it was a
IMr. Cardin.]
collection of hopes. Well, if we contrast his own speech with the Speech from the Throne, I am sure we shall all agree that it was an accumulation of discouragement and despair. Unwittingly he has paid a compliment to his opponents. Yes, the Speech from the Throne is a message of faith, of confidence, of life, of progress. The world is moving-I know my hon. friends will smile at that; the mere mention of the word liberalism gets on the nerves of those gentlemen-the world is moving, and we as a young country must move with it, we must set our vision towards the rising sun; looking at the past will not be of much avail.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are looking
West.


Ernest Lapointe: Politically, west, south,
east and north-we on this side of the House are not sectionalists. Social, economic and political systems are clashing in the world today as were the armies on the battlefields five years ago. The victory will rest with those who properly protect and safeguard the needs and rights of the masses, of the producers and of the labouring men. But, Sir, in that battle, as in its counterpart of five years ago, the victory will not side with those who merely use defensive tactics and refuse to move forward.
What constructive statement can be found in the utterances of my right hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, delivered in this House the other day? Apart from unfair depreciation of his opponents, what did it contain? What remedy did he offer, what suggestion did he make? I ask any hon. member and I ask the people of this country, where can they find a constructive suggestion in the speech of my right hon. friend? But I am not surprised at the absence of anything constructive. At a banquet tendered to him last year by his followers in the House of Commons and the Senate, he announced that this will be his policy for some time.
I do not want to be unfair to my right hon. friend, I quote his own words -as reported in the Ottawa Journal of April 18, 1923:
I never can be moved from the discharge of that duty, continued Mr. Meighen, by the importunities of those who think otherwise, by the impatience of a section of the press, nor by any device, however resourceful. I am confident that a foundation of distrust in this administration must be laid by convincing the public that the whole of the past Liberal campaign was dishonest from the beginning.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: I knew I would strike
the heart of my right hon. friend. He continued :

The Address-Mr. Lapointe
As soon as we get that conviction general we shall have the foundation on which later constructive policies may be successfully built. That is our first duty, and towards that we have to concentrate our efforts.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: So my right hon. friend
agrees still with that statement of his, that his only duty is to lay a foundation of distrust in the government of the day, and then later, when he shall have been successful, will be the time for constructive policies. Mr. Speaker, no other public man in Canada ever expressed such a statement.
And he has kept his pledge. The sole object of the campaign which has been conducted throughout the country during the last few months has been to hamper the work of those who have to clear up the ghastly muddles and messes which he and his friends have bequeathed to his successors,-what you, Sir, a lover of the classics would call damnosa hereditas. Of course, he has been supported in this campaign by all those who hate liberalism, particularly because they distrust and despise the people. He has been helped by those who are seeking more privileges and know that they cannot get them from the democratic government which is now in power. Read certain speeches, analyze certain statements that have been made, and you will see that this propaganda was a curtain-raiser for a demand for higher protection. The President of the Ontario Liberal-Conservative Association, in Hamilton the other day, when organizing a branch there, said:
We are organizing to chase from Ottawa this terrific-tar iff-cutting government which is in power.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friends say, " hear, hear," but not very long ago they voted for a motion of the right hon. leader of the opposition which declared that we had broken our pledges in that we had not made any reduction in the tariff. I confess that I admire that Tory consistency.
Is the trade of Canada declining? Is failure going to be the outcome of Canadian industry and enterprise? Amid the confusion that has been created in the public mind by lugubrious utterances concerning the things that are hampering our prosperity, there is at least one fact that furnishes solace and courage and ground for a sane judgment on the situation, and that is that our production is increasing all the time and that the national wealth is larger than it ever was. Mr. Speaker, the statistics show that our national wealth is great, and Canadians should
not slander their country-indeed, some of them are even slandering themselves for the purpose of achieving some selfish interest. The statistics show that the trade of Canada has enormously increased; that, as I have said, it has never been larger than it is today. Our exports are greater, and the balance is in our favour. Every time a domestic loan is floated, either by this government or by the provinces, there is money in Canada to subscribe to it. My right hon. friend said the other day that the number of business failures resulting in bankruptcy was increasing; I have here the statistics to show they have decreased fifty per cent during the last year. And yet the "whisperers of death," the disgruntled politicians, and the seekers of privileges, are claiming that all this means nothing and are adducing arguments to prove that the more trade the less wealth, the more exports the less prosperity. My right hon. friend devoted one hour of his time the other day to setting forth such an argument. Imagine what he would say if the figures were the other way.
Reference has been made to the fact that a number of our population have left the country. It is unfortunate that it should be so, but I do not hesitate to say that if men are leaving this country, those who are primarily responsible for it are the whisperers of death, the preachers of blue ruin, the men who say that Canada is to-day a land of desolation, taxes and debts. The young Canadians of to-day will never forgive those who have been slandering their country. I say that Canada and Canadians should be grateful to Providence for the condition in which our country finds itself compared with that of other nations of the world after the crisis which, in common with those other nations, we have gone through. The conditions in Europe are still affecting us. If there is one thing which the war and its effects have taught the people of the world more clearly than anything else it is the interest that every country has in the social and economic life of every other country. We are all interrelated peoples, as individuals, and what does injury to one country does injury to all the countries. Problems which are international in their scope cannot be easily remedied by purely national solutions. That is why I am a strong advocate of a league of nations. Unfortunately, the world is not yet at peace; far from it. Such a prudent and distinguished statesman as Lord Grey of Falloden said at Bath only the other day that he felt it his duty to tell his hearers that things were going from bad to worse in Europe and were shaping, if not

The Address-Mr. Lapointe
immediately, almost certainly, toward another war. From this side of the Atlantic we must certainly say that we do not see any great improvement on the other side. Peace has not resumed its sway over the hearts and minds of men. Stability of currency, which is so necessary to the rebuilding of the shattered fabric of international trade, is not yet apparent. We have seen recently the Belgian franc, the French francs, the German mark, the Russian rouble, suffer fantastic declines; and the same thing has happened in most of the European countries and even in some parts of South America. Canada is standing the test with flying colours, in spite of the whisperers of death. We should be proud of it; we should be grateful to Providence for it, and we should not recriminate as some gentlemen have done for the last few months. I am pleased to see that they seem to realize the error of their ways: for the last few days we have not heard much about our awful financial condition; we have heard only about the tariff. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) who is a fine speaker-none better, from the parliamentary viewpoint, in this House-applied himself during the whole of his speech yesterday to the tariff and merely to that. He implored me to convert my speech into a budget speech, because he asked me to give him the details. Let me tell my hon. friend that in his address he was not as logical as he usually is. He said that nothing should be stated in the Speech from the Throne concerning the tariff. Of course this has been done before.


Arthur Meighen: He did not say that.


Ernest Lapointe: Nothing explicit, he said. Am I right now?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I stated that it was not according to constitutional procedure in this House to anticipate the budget in the Speech from the Throne by declaring any specific reductions in duties on particular articles or classes of articles.


Ernest Lapointe: And yet my hon. friend, having stated that it is against constitutional authority or practice to declare in the Speech from the Throne what will be the specific measures with respect to the tariff, has asked me to give him that in detail.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, my hon. friend was addressing himself to every one of the ministers.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I asked for an explanation of an ambiguous clause.


Ernest Lapointe: He says that it should
not be specific, and that we should make it still more specific.


Arthur Meighen: After the harm is done.


Ernest Lapointe: Then he turned in the
direction of my Progressive friends to his left and warned them that nothing would be done. So it is not explicit, as my hon. friend says.
The other fault he had to find with the government-I do not know whether it is a great fault-was that on two occasions this debate has come very close to an end and to the taking of a vote and my hon. friend was horrified at the prospect of a vote being taken on the amendment. Why, in the press, even in newspapers supporting my hon. friend, we see complaints that this debate is much too long, that it is costing the country $30,000 a day-by the way, while I mention that figure, which I see repeated in all the newspapers of the land, may I say that it is wrong.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: May I at least remove
that sin from the conscience of my hon. friends opposite. I am informed that the real cost to the country of a session of parliament is $55,000 per month, because the rest of the expenditure is spread over the whole year whether there is a session or not. So $30,000 a day is a little too much.
Though it may please my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre, than whom I have no better friend, I really cannot agree to make a budget speech to-day, and I shall speak of something else. The details he is so anxious to receive will be officially given in the budget speech which will be delivered in a few weeks.
May I address myself now for a little while to some statements which have been made by the leader of the opposition in the country, some of which he has repeated in this House? My right hon. friend has carried on a campaign in Canada. We have been pleased to see him in my own province. He made a fine pilgrimage through the province of Quebec, in the course of which we were pleased to see him distribute medals to the schools, colleges and convents. But we were not so pleased to see him distribute misrepresentations of facts to the rest of the people of the province. He frequently at his meetings repeated what I had stated with regard to the net debt of Canada, that the net debt of Canada per capita was lower than the debt of Great Britain and of the other British Dominions. My right hon. friend agreed with that, but then he asked:	"Why does

The Address-Mr. Lapointe
not Mr. Lapointe then say why our taxes are higher?" My right hon. friend asks me a difficult question when he asks me to give the reason, for the simple reason that I cannot find a cause for an effect which exists only in his imagination. My right hon. friend was wrong every time he stated that taxation in Canada is higher than in Great Britain and the other British Dominions. Canada has the lowest taxation of them all.


Arthur Meighen: No.


Ernest Lapointe: I was expecting my right hon. friend to say No, and I have come with some ammunition. The first thing I did was to inquire as to the income tax and I have here an official communication from the Commissioner of Taxation, comparing the income tax in Canada with that paid in Great Britain and the other British Dominions. This is a very interesting statement:
Rates applicable to 1923 Income-Married person-No dependents.
Exemption: Canada, $2,000; Great Britain, $1,095; Australia, $973; New Zealand, $1,460.
Income	Canada Great Britain Australia New Zealand			
$ 2,000	$ 82 12	$ 62 43	$ 50 013,000	$ 40 00	246 37	121 91	158 265,000	126 00	684 37	291 70	489 6210,000	619 50	1,779 37	965 06	1,776 0020.000	2,089 50	4,915 33	2,945 28	5,648 0530,000	4,084 50	8,930 34	7,787 09	11,046 8850,000	9,649 50	18,298 67	16,645 87	18,581 30
I will not ask the House to bear with me while I give the taxation on every income. Let me only say that the taxation continues in the same proportion until you reach incomes of between $150,000 and $200,000. On an income of $200,000 the Canadian pays $97,849.50, while in Great Britain the taxation amounts to $94,948.67. The same proportion continues until you reach an income of $1,000,000, but my right hon. friend will agree with me that the number of Canadians who pay taxes on an income of that size is rather microscopic and that the bulk of the Canadian people is less heavily taxed than the people of Great Britain and the other British Dominions so far as income tax is concerned.


Mr. MANION:: What about municipal taxation?


Ernest Lapointe: Let us come to that. I asked the Bureau of Statistics about it and here is the answer I received:
The taxation revenue per head of population in the United Kingdom is $79.37.
The taxation revenue per head of population in Australia is $43.09.
The taxation revenue per head of population in New Zealand is $60.97.
The taxation revenue per head of population in Canada is $36.67.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If my hon. friend will permit me, he does not mean to suggest that is the taxation revenue, he means the income tax revenue?


Ernest Lapointe: Oh no, I will give the
details if it suits my hon. friend.


Robert James Manion: Does that include provincial taxation?


Ernest Lapointe: It does so far as Australia is concerned, it does not in the case of the other countries which are not administered in the same way. But the proposition is so vastly different that we have no hesitation at all-and any expert in taxation I have spoken to agrees in saying that Canada is the lowest-taxed country in the British Empire.


Mr. CLARK:: Have you the figures with
respect to the United States in that statement of taxation revenue?


Ernest Lapointe: Well, I have just read
in the Congressional Record of the United States a speech by a gentleman whose name I cannot remember, the chairman of the Appropriations committee, and his statement is that the United States is the most heavily taxed country in the world. I agree with my hon. friend that the income taxation there is less than in Canada, but they have all sorts of other taxes which weigh heavily on the shoulders of their population, and any American will tell you so.


John Arthur Clark: My hon. friend did not
ascertain the figures from the Bureau of Statistics.
Mr. LAPOINTE. I did not. My reason for not doing so is that my conflict with the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) has reference to the financial position of the British Dominions and not the United States.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I understood my hon.
friend to say that the taxation revenue for Canada was $36 per capita?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am quite sure that the impression my hon. friend is giving is wholly wrong; it may not be intentional on his part, I am sure it is not. The per capita taxation of Canada is somewhere around $250 per head.


Ernest Lapointe: No, that is the debt per capita, not the taxation. I have in my hand a statement by Sir Henry Gibson, chairman of the Parliamentary committee of the National Union of Manufacturers in Great Britain. I took it from the December number

The Address-Mr. Lapointe
of the English Review. I quote it in part:
Since the recent great war, owing to the fact that we have balanced our budget and are paying off our debt, our taxation is much higher than that of any other country in the world, thus increasing the cost of home manufactures.
There is no doubt as to that, and we must admire Britain in that respect. Whatever else can be said of Britain it must be conceded that she deals earnestly with serious problems. Britain financed her Allies during the war. She did not repudiate any debt. She did not leave the payment of those debts to posterity. She has taxed her people heavily, she is meeting her obligations, and she is giving to the world an example of honest international dealings. All honour to Great Britain for that! But, Mr. Speaker, we could not do the same in Canada, probably on account of our proximity to the United States.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: My right hon. friend says " hear, hear," and he is right. But why complain of our heavy taxation when other nations, and other peoples, are a good deal more heavily taxed than we are?
4 p.m. A gentleman was saying the other day, an acquaintance of my right hon. friend, that our income taxation in this country was a confiscation of capital. He was wrong, and I have shown he was wrong. Moreover if you decrease the income tax, when it has been decreased with the present financial condition of the country, somebody else will have to pay. That gentleman would like to confiscate the comforts of life which poorer people have, but which they could not have if the price of the commodities they use was increased.
My right hon. friend referred many times to the French treaty. On all platforms from which he spoke in the country he did so. He also referred to the subject when the leader of the government was speaking the other day. Of course, in his opinion that treaty is no good; it never had any merit. It pleases my right hon. friend to throw ridicule on the French treaty. He said the other day that apart from wheat our exports to France had decreased.


Arthur Meighen: No.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, Hansard will show. My right hon. friend is suffering from loss of memory.


Arthur Meighen: I rarely suffer from that. What I said was this-that the whole in-

crease, and more than the increase, was made up by wheat and other goods not affected by the treaty.


Ernest Lapointe: I think my right hon. friend is wrong even in that contention.


Arthur Meighen: That is what I was told by a government officer.


Ernest Lapointe: There are many articles in which there was a heavy increase. My hon. friend for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) referred yesterday to the subject of agricultural implements. Since the treaty came into force we have exported $1,431,428 of agricultural implements. That is since September last. During the same period of last year we exported $796,842 worth. There has been an increase of 100 per cent in agricultural implements alone. And let me say en passant that I am pleased to see that the manufacturers of implements can compete with the world on a foreign market. There has also been an increase in various articles, mainly parts of automobiles, electrical apparatus, and aluminum ware. I have a further authority which my right hon. friend will not dispute. In July last the annual convention of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association was held in Toronto. Attached to that body is a tariff committee which presented a report. That report appeared in the July issue of Industrial Canada and here is what I read:
The Convention-
Meaning the treaty.
-removes all discriminations against Canada in favour of the United States, and in addition provides for substantial tariff preference on a considerable list of the products of each country.
And that report was carried unanimously. Surely the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) will remove from his mind this idea of brandy and wine with regard to the French treaty and admit that we did some good and that the manufacturers of the country have received it' with commendation.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Would the hon. gentleman give us some returns in respect to lobsters and salmon?


Arthur Meighen: And condensed milk?


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend will
put that question on the order paper, I shall be glad. I cannot carry that information about with me.
There is another treaty which has received the sarcastic criticism of my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen). I refer to the famous Hali-

The Address-Mr. Lapointe
but treaty. My right hon. friend has paraded the Halibut treaty from the Atlantic to the Pacific for the last six months. He has charged me with having "elbowed aside" the British Ambassador at Washington for the purpose of affixing my signature to that treaty, and he has repeated periodically that, as a result, the treaty is not valid; that the United States Senate has refused it, and that there is no Halibut treaty. My right hon. friend knows that that statement is not according to the facts. Last year, when the treaty was under discussion in this House, he admitted that the signature had nothing to do with the attitude of the Senate.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no.


Ernest Lapointe: My right hon. friend
admitted it.


Arthur Meighen: No.


Ernest Lapointe: Will my right hon.
friend permit me, to-morrow, to quote what
he said on that occasion?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: Thank you, I will.
Another instance of loss of memory 1 Let me tell my right hon. friend that the signature on the treaty had nothing to do with the rider which was attached by the Senate afterwards. The Canadian government took the stand that, as this was a purely Canadian affair concerning only Canada and the United States, the treaty should be negotiated and signed by a Canadian minister, and it was so signed. Unfortunately, this was at the end of a session of the United States congress. The treaty was submitted to the Senate of the United States m the dying hours of the session, and that riuer, which had nothing to do with the signature, which was for the purpose of changing the wording of the treaty, wording which had been prepared and suggested by the Americans themselves, was not called to the attention of the authorities of the United States. I may tell my right hon. friend that he is mistaken in his prediction. I have the strongest assurance on the strongest authority that the Senate of the United States will not insist on that rider, and that the treaty will be ratified at the present session of Congress.


Arthur Meighen: The statement which I
made and which the hon. member contradicted was that there was no Halibut treaty. Does he say again that there is a Halibut treaty?


Ernest Lapointe: There is a treaty which waits for the ratification of the American Senate, and I have every confidence that it will be ratified.


Arthur Meighen: There may be, some day.


Ernest Lapointe: This prediction of my
right hon. friend is no more founded than is his prediction about the result of the next election. When my right hon. friend ventures predictions on the next election, in order to be taken seriously, he says as he did in Toronto the other day:	"Gentlemen, the
next government will be the most unpopular in the history of Canada." It will have to go a long way to beat the record of the National Liberal and Conservative government.
Another statement of facts which I desire to correct, since I was a party to the controversy, is with regard to the cancellation of a contract which was granted to Canadian-Vickers after the election of 1921 for the construction of an ice-breaker for an amount of $1,580,000. My hon. friend said the other day that the amount was about one milliion dollars. It is $1,580,000, and the Mikula which has been purchased by the government has cost, laid down at Quebec in first class repair, a total of $437,115.73. This includes all the repairs which were made after a certificate of Lloyds had been secured. The vessel was delivered to Canada as good as new, and the country has saved over one million dollars, my hon. friend nothwithstanding.
There is another fact which was criticized while my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) was speaking. This is in connection with the famous dry-dock at Victoria. My leader was told that that dry-dock had been started in 1911. Of course, it had nothing to do with the elections! These are the facts. In 1911, an application had been made by a private company, under the name of the Esquimalt Dry-dock and Shipbuilding Company, for the usual subsidy granted for the construction of a dry-dock; but this was abandoned and nothing was done until 1914. Then the government purchased land for constructing a dry-dock at Esquimalt at a cost of $346,221.25. Curiously enough, however, it was demonstrated that this land was not suitable as a site for a dry-dock. It is still there unused; I saw it there last fall. But it was only on the 24th December, 1919, a month or so after the election of my good friend, the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) that an order in council was passed granting authority to expropriate a new site called Skinner's Cove. This new site has cost the country $54,388.03. When this government came into office, a sum of over $1,000,000

The Address

Mr. Lapointe

had already been expended, and, of course, the construction of the dry-dock had to be continued. I am afraid that is not the only expenditure at Victoria which has left on the country a crushing load. I have in my hand a document concerning the construction of four wooden ships at Victoria. Under an order in council, passed during that same month of December, 1919, Canada agreed to furnish for each vessel a sum of $175,000, the builders having to contribute a sum of $75,000. The country was to have a first mortgage on the vessels, bearing interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. I will not, however, discuss this matter except to give the result and to show when there was such extravagance in the administration of the affairs of the country as is described in certain newspapers. The country	has paid	$644,050.65 for
the construction of those four wooden ships. Only one of them has been completed, and it had to be completed by the government itself, the material being sold afterwards. The whole revenue to the government amounts to $32.-
063..60 out of $600,000. The boat was sold for $22,000, the materials for $9,000, and sundries $1,063.60. What is queer about the whole transaction is that my predecessor in the Department of Marine was strongly opposed to the giving of that money for the construction of wooden ships at Victoria. I have a letter written by him to my hon. friend, the then Minister of Finance, and also a letter from him to the Right Hon. Sir George E. Foster, prior to the passing of that order in council. Later on-and this is still more conspicuously strange -I find a letter from him dated April, 1920, which reads:
Dear Dr. Toi.mte,
I have given the matter further consideration regarding the Marine Department's supervising the construction of brigantine sailing ships that are being built largely at public expense at Victoria. You are aware that I was very much opposed to this proposition from the start, and, while I would like very much to oblige you, I really cannot have anything to do with it myself nor allow my department to be connected with it in any way.
Yours faithfully,
C. C. Ballantynb.
What does this mean? It means that that government gave $600,000 of the money of the country to a company for the construction of four wooden ships with which the Minister of Marine refused to have anything to do, and refused to allow the supervision of the work in a proper way, and the result is that the country has lost practically all the money that was given. This is an example of the administration which we had prior to December, 1921.
(Mr. Lapointe.]
Now, my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) when he was in the city of Quebec delivered an address to the citizens; and after having made many statements to which I have referred, he paid me a compliment,-well, I do not know whether the compliment was to me or to himself. He said that his imperialism and Ernest Lapointe's imperialism were the same.


Arthur Meighen: I never said that.


Ernest Lapointe: The newspapers said it, then.


Arthur Meighen: Forgive me for that.


Ernest Lapointe: The world changes, and
people change with the world. We see the truth of this to-day in the Old Country where people who were branded as disloyal and who were given a very bad reputation not very long ago are now ministers of the Crown in Great Britain. And there is a considerable change in this country. After what was said about myself and those who thought as I did not so long ago, it seems now that there i3 no difference between my right hon. friend and me. Well the right hon. gentleman should not charge me with elbowing British ambassadors here and there; that is somewhat different. There was a difference also last year. The House will recall that famous telegram which was sent to the British dominions by the former government of Great Britain when a crisis, or what seemed to some people a crisis, threatened in the Near East. This government took the attitude, I think very properly, that we required an explanation and detailed information before sending any answer. We were criticized for that by my right hon. friend. In Toronto he said that the duty of the government should have been to reply, as he himself said, "Ready, aye ready." My right hon. friend nods his head in assent. Perhaps it might interest him to hear what the late Mr. Bonar Law had to say about this matter.


Arthur Meighen: What I said in Toronto
I said in Quebec. The hon. member has quoted only one small disconnected part of my statement.


Ernest Lapointe: My right hon. friend went to Toronto to deliver his famous " Ready, aye ready " declaration, and that is why I mentioned Toronto. Here is what the late Right Hon. Mr. Bonar Law said only a few weeks, I should say a few days, after that message had been despatched:
To throw suddenly, as a bolt from the blue, this appeal for help when not one of the dominions had the remotest idea that there was any need of it, and when it was well known that their help could not come in

The Address-^Mr. Lapointe
time to be of any assistance in the crisis, was to risk, in my opinion, one of the greatest assets of this Empire.
It was to take a risk with our dominions which no wise man would have taken and which I think was not more foolish than it was wrong.
That appeal, characterized by Mr. Bonar
Law as being both foolish and wrong, my right hon. friend would have received with the assurance " Ready, aye ready." I do not hesitate to say that my right hon. friend is not a safe leader when there are war clouds still hanging over nations.
May I say, while on this subject, a word or two about the recent Imperial Conference.
I desire to congratulate my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his associates on the work they accomplished there. The Prime Minister acted as a true British statesman, jealous of the rights and the autonomy of his own country, but just as keen an exponent of the rights of the other units of the Empire. 1 was sorry that my right hon. friend tried to throw some ridicule on the position of my leader at the Imperial Conference. That is not dignified political warfare. The task of my right hon. leader was appreciated differently by those who witnessed his work there, and by an almost, I might say entirely, unanimous British press. I am glad that this last conference vindicated the idea that led to these gatherings, namely, that they are conferences merely and by no means an executive committee. These gatherings are intended to allow various British prime ministers to meet together and confer, exchanging views and communicating opinions, wishing one another well, trying to help one another, but preserving all the time each his own personal individuality.	And it should be so; any
attempt to transform these conferences into a body with more power would be a step towards destruction.
In view of certain statements which were made by one or two of the delegates to the last conference after the result of the recent British elections, I think it is well that we should express our own views in the matter. They are mistaken who believe that the decision of any such conference is binding, either upon the dominions or upon Great Britain herself The parliament of Canada will never subscribe to this doctrine, and it does not expect th^ parliament of Great Britain to subscribe to it either. Those decisions are not any more binding when they relate to fiscal matters or imperial preference than when they relate to naval or other policies. It is preposterous to think that the people of Great Britain could be bound to a policy which they might have rejected 21i
at the polls by an overwhelming vote. Canadians would resent any contention that an imperial conference might interfere with our mode of raising revenue; and surely we must admit that the people of Great Britain have the same right. May I say also that we are quite able to speak for ourselves in this part of the world, and that I deny the right of any British statesman who comes to this country to go back to Great Britain and presume to represent the feelings of Canada? For instance, I have seen reports of speeches in Great Britain and editorials in British papers describing the sorrow that was manifested everywhere in Canada at the result of the last British elections. I have never seen such sorrow in this country. We are giving Great Britain a preference in our market of our own free will and because it suits us; and, Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that our goods are admitted free into Great Britain while British goods are paying duty in this country. To state that Great Britain does not act fairly w.th us by refusing to tax the goods of other countries while admitting our own free is sheer nonsense. Certain gentlemen-and they were the leaders of the tariff preference campaign in Great Britain-advocated free trade within the Empire. Now, whatever may be the merits of this policy-and I do not want to give my own opinion on it to-day-I may call to the notice of our manufacturers that they are already objecting, many of them strongly, to the volume of British goods now coming into this country undei the preferential tariff. I ask them what wornd the importations be if we had free trade? All this shows that fiscal autonomy is just as necessary to this country as political autonomy, and that every nation within the Empire must be left free to devise its own fiscal policies according to its needs and the wishes of its people.
My hon. friend from Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) complained that a subject was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne but there was no declaration of policy in regard to it. I refer to the St. Lawrence waterway scheme. Well, there are strong supporters and advocates of this great project, and there are equally strong objectors. Is it not, then, the part of wisdom to see that all the scientific and engineering investigation necessary is made before we commit ourselves to the execution of the project? Even the report of the International Joint Waterways Commission suggested that a further investigation should be made by an enlarged engineering board. Now, to those who are

The Address-'Mr. Lapointe
very strongly opposed to this project let me say this: First, no scheme will be entered into at any time as far as I am concerned-and I think it is the policy of the government- until it is clearly shown that the present level of the St. Lawrence river at all points will never be lowered as a result of the works to be carried out; second, that all rights which any of the provinces may possess will be properly safeguarded. It has been stated in the course of this debate that there is strong opposition to the scheme in some parts of the province of Quebec. I admit there is. Per. haps there are misapprehensions which may be cleared up as the result of the investigations to be made. But let me say in this connection that the former government made a mistake, indeed a blunder, when it deprived Quebec of its representation on the International Joint Waterways Board and replaced Mr. Justice Mignault by a gentleman who had been rejected at the polls by the electors of Ontario. Quebec was and is supremely interested in this scheme. I think every hon. member will agree with me that it was a blunder to take away from the board the only representative of the province of Quebec and not replace him by another representative from that province, because the report of such a board, upon which Quebec had no representation, although it is so supremely interested, could not carry with the citizens of the province the weight of confidence which would otherwise have been the case.
My right hon. friend referred to a certain election which took place in the county of Kent, and the part which I am supposed to have taken in that election. My right hon. friend spoke of the terrible bribing policy carried on by the government in that county, and he said I went in a repentant mood and told the. electors that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would not go there any more for the enforcement of the fisheries laws. Is that a crime of ,first magnitude? When I went down to the county I met my genial friend the member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) in the city of Moncton, and the first thing I did was to buy a copy of that good Conservative newspaper, the Daily Times, which I found contained a report of a speech delivered the preceding day by my hon. friend himself. Here is what I read:
It was by Mr. Lapointe's department that the Royal Northwest Mounted Police had been sent into the county of Kent. Never before in history had the armed forces of Canada been used for the enforcement of legislation regarding fisheries or any other regulations. They were only used in criminal matters and in cases where the civil authorities were unable to deal with the situation.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: My right hon. friend
says, "hear, hear," so he made the statement; I am glad to know it. In the same newspaper I read the following editorial comment-I shall quote only part of it:
Mr. Lapointe treated the fishermen as outlaws; never before in the history of this province were an honest and hard-toiling body of men subjected to such vexatious, aggravating and ill-advised treatment.
When I was accused of being such a tyrant I investigated the matter and I found that it had been the policy of the Department of Marine and Fisheries since 1920 to use the mounted police for the enforcement of fisheries regulations. That policy was originated by the former government, and I found in the records of the department after the election that one of those who asked for that so-called reform was a leading member of the Conservative party-I think he was its chief organizer in Kent during the recent election campaign. My own opinion is that fisheries regulations can be enforced without the use of soldiers or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and I was pleased to declare that as long as I was Minister of Marine and Fisheries no more mounted police should go into Kent county. I hope that my hon. friend who is now administering the department (Mr. Cardin) will carry on with the promise I made -not a promise, but a statement, and I abide by it. Was there anything wrong in that? Having been charged by the gentlemen who were responsible for that change in the enforcement of the regulations with having committed such a crime, was there anything wrong in saying to them, "I am confident myself that the police are not needed in the enforcement of fisheries regulations, and that they should not be used for that purpose; if the Department of Marine needs such officers or supervisors they should appoint them from the civil population of Canada?"


Mr. HANSON:: May I ask the hon. gentleman how it happens that it took him two and a half years to find that that was the policy of this department,-that he never found that out until the eve of the Kent election?


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend's arithmetic is as wrong as his statement-with regard to the two and a half years. My hon. friends were in office when that policy was inaugurated.
Now, about those elections in Halifax and Kent, my right hon. friend took the attitude the other day of a triumphant, victorious general. Well I do not see that there

The Address-[DOT]Mr. Lapointe
is anything in the result for my right hon. friend to write home about. He was not there; he went to the county of Cape Breton North and Victoria. I am told that prior to his visit there we were not too sure of the election, but it came out all right afterwards. Kent and Halifax were carried without my right hon. friend, and his friends from there should have wired him on the night of the election in the terms of that historic phrase, "Brave Crillon, pends-toi, nous avons vaincu sans toil"


An hon. MEMBER:: Translate it.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, I am afraid I cannot translate it-"Brave Crillon, hang yourself; we have conquered without you!" But that election was characterized by appeals which do no credit to any of the gentlemen who indulged in them, because they were sectional appeals and appeals to national discussion. Now, I have the newspapers with me; that is the safe way when you make statements with regard to what the newspapers have said. The government was represented as having sold the East to the West, more particularly in the Crows-nest pass agreement. It is remarkable the number of times the country is for sale. We are supposed to have sold the East last year and we are told to-day that we are still selling it to the western farmers. My hon. friend from Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion), suggested a reciprocity in that sort of trade when he said that our western friends were selling their birthright for a mess of pottage; so there is sale on both sides.


Robert James Manion: I said Esau sold his.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes; so it is an extraordinary fact that that mercantile wickedness is prevailing everywhere. Well, while these hon. gentlemen were saying in Kent and Halifax that the East was being sold to the West, my right hon. friend, as the newspapers of the time will show, was in Saskatoon and Edmonton singing a love duet with Hon. Robert Rogers on a platform of reconciliation, and both were saying that the government had betrayed the interests of the West, had violated their pledges to the western farmers, and were not carrying out [DOT]any of the promises made to them. Tory tactics, Tory methods-


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker-


Ernest Lapointe: I am glad my right
hon. friend stands up when I say that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: I enjoy the wit of the
hon. gentleman as much as his friends do; it is his great asset. What I wanted to say was merely this: I stated as regards betrayal at Edmonton and Saskatoon exactly what I have stated in this House and no more, and I stated in western Canada what I stated in eastern Canada with respect to the Crows-nest pass.


Ernest Lapointe: If my right hon. friend
is satisfied with what he has just said, he does not in the least contradict my statement. It does not matter whether he said it in the House as well as in the West; I am merely concerned with what he said in the West. As I was saying when my right hon. friend stood up, that is Tory tactics, Tory methods, Tory duplicity, Tory appeals to division in this country.


Mr MEIGHEN:: Read it.


Ernest Lapointe: Every one of us feels proud of the part of the country in which he lives and which is dear to him. But, Sir, if Canada is to be a great country, Maritime province rights, western rights, central Canada rights, must be subordinate to the national duty of all Canadians to build up a country undivided and indivisible, the home of a big, united people. To the accomplishment of that task we will endeavour to devote all our energies. It is my earnest hope that there will always be in this country a big party which will be the supreme line _ of defence, protecting Canada against division and disruption, by trying to meet in a reasonable way the views of Canadians in all sections of the country, and by trying to satisfy so far as is possible what they represent to us as their needs. No Canadian, whether he lives in the West or in the East, should concentrate his vision and mould his opinion as if Canada ended at lake Superior. There are advantages and obstacles in this country, but I hope the former outweigh the latter; indeed, that they are predominant. Of course, they are caused by geographical and economic conditions, and what we should try and do is always to consider the interests of the nation as a whole, and not the interests of an individual or of any set of individuals. We should try, not to build up a city or a district, but to build up a great Canadian nation. If to accomplish that we have to resort to some compromise, if we have to follow some middle course, I contend and believe that that course is a national duty. Any man who tries to align agriculture against industry in this country
31'G

The Address-'Mr. Lapointe
or industry against agriculture is not doing his duty to this country.


Sir. HENRY DRAYTON:: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: I am glad I have struck a responsive chord in the heart of my hon. friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wish you would make a start and keep on in the right direction.


Ernest Lapointe: I am going to keep on that way to the end of my remarks.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Be consistent that long.


Ernest Lapointe: We are proud of the progress of industry in this country. It has progressed by leaps and bounds, and I am glad of it. It deserves all encouragement. But we must not forget that agriculture is the basis of our national life. I had the privilege of visiting the western provinces in the course of recent months. If that is a crime, I plead guilty, and I intend to commit it again. I have seen the wonderful crops in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and whatever opinion we may have of the views of the western farmer there is one thing of which we may all be proud, and that is that they produce more food per capita in the western provinces than anywhere else in the world. One cannot but regret that they are not receiving for their work and their investment better returns. Doubtless the conditions prevailing throughout the world are largely responsible for that, and I hope those conditions will remedy themselves in the course of time.
I have not much respect for those who answer the farmers or the grain growers when they submit their grievances, that they should change their method of farming. I do not think our manufacturing friends would be satisfied, when they themselves submit the conditions which affect them, if they were answered: Well, devote your time and your energy to some other industry, produce something else.
I do not think my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) was altogether fair yesterday when he suggested to the farmers of the West that the home market was their salvation, and that they should wait until that market is increased. Whatever may be the merits or the demerits of the proposal I am sure that our friends from the West desire to have their remedy in the course of their lifetime at least, if not in this generation, and they did not seem to be inclined to follow my hon. friend into

his kingdom of Utopia. I believe that what is needed is that every one in this country whether he lives in the East or the West, whether he grows wheat or works in an industrial concern, should feel that he is receiving from the government of this country an equal measure of justice; I think that everybody will agree with me in that statement. The sense of grievance in the heart or mind of any Canadian is harmful and cannot but work injury. Recriminations and denunciations are of no avail. Nothing can be built on them.
What is imperatively needed in this country is to knit afresh national brotherhood. A great Italian statesman, Mazzini, used to say that young Italy was the polar star of his thoughts. Let a united Canada be the polar star of all our actions, of all our policies. Let it be our one supreme ambition, and let every Canadian devote his time and his energy to accomplishing that end, and to building up a great and prosperous nation.
Mr. ALEXANDRE J. DOUCET (Kent, A ,B.):	Mr.	Speaker, may I have the
temerity to follow such an eloquent speaker as the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe)? I wish at the outset, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate you upon the honourable position which you occupy in this chamber. Representing as you do a county whose population is largely of French-Acadian descent, and knowing that you are familiar with their customs, the hardships they have had to endure in years long past, and the lack of educational facilities they have had to contend with, I trust that if in this debate, I infringe upon the rules or the procedure of this House you will readily understand that it will be through lack of knowledge, and not through wish or intent. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I had intended to open my remarks in the French language, the language which I cherish, the language which I learnt at my mother's knee, the language of five-sixths of the population of my constituency, but I do not wish to delay this debate and I intend to use the language of the majority, one of the two great languages of this country, and one of the two official languages of this House.
We are told in the Speech from the Throne that:
National unity, not less than national prosperity, depends upon the surmounting of those barriers which have tended to separate western from eastern Canada, and to discourage permanent settlement upon the land.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are very nice words, but so far as some of the representatives on the other side of the House are concerned,

The
Address-Mr. Doucet
they are really vain words. If you will read the speeches made during this debate by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. d'Anjou) and the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Ouimet) you will recognize immediately that these hon. gentlemen are not striving for national unity. What they are seeking to do is to perpetuate the disunion which has prevailed for a number of years past, largely owing to political machinations unworthy of men occupying seats in this Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, I belong to the French-Acadian race who established and colonized in 1605 the first village of white people on this northern hemisphere. Our clergy through the Jesuit fathers, were also the first to enunciate pleas in behalf of civilization and Christianity in 1611. From the sturdy population of those pioneer days sprang men such as Mr. Amand Landry who when called upon to sacrifice his principles in 1857, spoke as follows in the legislative assembly at Frederiction-and I may explain that he was the father of Sir. Pierre A. Landry, who occupied a seat in this House and was afterwards elevated to the bench of New Brunswick:
My forefathers preferred the spoliation of their property and exile rather than taking the oath of allegiance which they held in abhorrence. I would be unworthy of them if I should accept this money to betray my political party. I would be dishonoured by such an action. I want to hand down to my children and to my fellow countnunen a name unblemished and revered. I very strongly decline your offer. Give back that money to those who have sent you to me, and tell them that although the Frenchman, as I am called here, may be poor, there is not enough gold in the world to corrupt him.
Sir, I am pleased indeed to follow the principles of the great Liberal-Conservative party laid down by such men as the late Sir. John A. Macdonald and Sir George Etienne Cartier as the principles upon which this great Dominion could be built up and best fulfil its destiny.


Mr. MARTELL:: Is it true that my hon. friend ran as a farmer candidate in New Brunswick in 1921?


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is not true.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Being a new member, Mr. Speaker, I would crave the indulgence -of hon. members opposite. I am not averse to crossexamination but I should like to say this-if my hon. friends will only be patient and wait a little while they will lose nothing by it. As to my position and candidature in 1921 I shall make that plain when the proper time comes. I wish to say that, while I belong to the French-Acadian race and profess the same creed as the hon. members for Rimouski and Vaudreuil-Soulanges, I follow proudly, as
I have already said, the principles laid down by Macdonald and Cartier. It was the latter,
I believe, who said that the last gun fired in the Dominion for the defence of British institutions would be fired by a French-Canadian. Let me say that the first gun to be fired-and God forbid that the day should ever come when such action will be necessary-in defence of the French language and the Catholic faith in this Dominion will be fired by a French Acadian.
We have heard something of by-elections in this country, and the last speaker referred to the by-election in Kent county, New Brunswick. Of course all hon. members know there was an election in that county.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Tlie Minister of Justice
knows it.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Yes, he undoubtedly does. The Prime Minister when he spoke in this debate said there had been thirty-four byelections .-ince the government had succeeded to office and that the government had only lost two. That is not a great deviation from the truth, and yet when you closely analyse exactly what happened during the last two years you will find that out'of the thirty-four by-elections, twenty have reference to gentlemen appointed tc offices of emolument who went back to their constituents for reelection. It would be unnatural to suppose, under the circums'ances that those men should not secure re-election, especially when we remember that their constituencies in 1920 and 1921 had voted Liberal by majorities running all the way from 2,000 to 7,000. Since that time there have been several by-elections, including one to which the Minister of Justice referred, Cape Breton North and Victoria. The minister said the right hon. leader of the opposition had been in that county. He did visit the constituency, but, whatever the result of the election is at-5 p.m. tributable to, the Liberal majority of 3,339 in 1921 was cut down to a minority in the recent contest. The hon. gentleman \Mr. Kelly) who now sits for that constituency does not represent p. majority of the voters in the riding. There was also a by-election in North Essex when the Liberal majority of 7,195 was cut down to 1,027. Again, a by-election in Halifax, caused by the death of the late lamented Dr. Blackadar resulted in the Liberal majority dropping from 5,141 to 3,872. May I also tell the House that there was a byelection in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. The former member, who had been elected in
The Address-Mr. Doucet

1921 by a majority of 929 was unseated. In the by-election the Progressive candidate was returned by a majority of 1,598, an increase of 669 over the result in the general election. At that by-election the Liberal candidate, Mr. Knowles, well-known to hon. members of the House, was defeated.


Joseph Archambault: Where was the
Tory candidate?


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: In the same place where
the Liberal was when my right hon. leader was elected in Grenville. The elevation of Mr. Maclean to the bench necessitated another by-election in Halifax, and the Liberal majority of 4,876 in 1921 was converted into a Conservative majority of 1,934. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has just vacated his seat. I suppose he would not like to hear the result in Kent county. The Liberal majority of 1,523 in 1921 was converted into a Conservative majority of 208.
Reference has been made to the campaign carried on in Kent county. I am not here this afternoon as spokesman for the hon. member for St. John City (Mr. Baxter), or for the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). They, as I know and as all other hon. members know, are quite able to answer for themselves. I am here, however, to explain some of the reasons why there was a change in the public opinion of Kent county, and also, inasmuch as the accusations come from the right side of the House, to lay bare some of the scandals that were committed in Kent county in order to bribe the electorate. In doing this, may I say something which also refers to the national unity which we are so anxioue to preserve? I quote from reports of a meeting held at Richibueto on the 18th December when-
Mr. Theriault, of Acadian descent himself, said that he brought them a message from the province of Quebec to vote against Meighen, because, he explained, in the opinion of Quebec and other provinces, Mr. Meighen was the representative of all that wa& "Bosche" in Canada.
That was one gem. Further down, he said:
It had been Mr. Meighen who had protested against a clause in the conscription law against seminary students being exempt.
My right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) can well reply for himself, and he will no doubt avail himself of the opportunity of doing so: but may I say, for my part, that never could I find written or spoken words coming from my right hon. leader in connection with the exemption of seminary students.


Arthur Meighen: There never was one.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I come to some of the
utterances that were made by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin)-and I am glad he is in his seat:
Dealing with the War-time Elections Act Mr. Cardin drew a word-picture of agents of the government rushing to France to seek the soldiers in the trenches to get their votes. According to him, these agents did their work while bullets were screaming and soldiers died. They were like vultures. . .
You have heard that word before, have you not? It was whispered by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) to an hon. member on my left who was speaking the other night.
They were like vultures, seeking votes among the little wooden crosses. Perhaps the vote they extracted from the poor soldier was the last act that poor soldier had performed in this life, perhaps, too, the little ballot paper was even stained with blood, but that mattered not to Mr. Meighen and his friends, who hurried back with the blood-stained papers to elect thereby candidates of their choice and keep themselves in power for the benefit and profit of their friends.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: That is good stuff from Quebec.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Is my hon. friend quoting from a Tory paper?


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I am quoting from the Montreal Gazette, a stenographic report, and if my hon. friends question this report, they will have an opportunity of denying it.


Mr. BOYS:: Let them do that now.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Nothing to deny. It is a true picture of what you did.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Need I quote any more of those nefarious scandals that were committed in that county for the purpose of winning votes in that by-election? In his address the other evening, the leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) said that the Kent county election had been won on local issues, and that we had not used any solid or valid arguments against the administration. I might say that, apart from the racial and religious cries used by some of my hon. friends opposite, a certain number of promises were made for the purpose of catching votes in Kent county. One promise was, and it was somewhat explained this afternoon by the Minister of Justice:
Hon. Mr. Lapointe was in a better humour and after telling a few stories launched out into an address of about an hour. The Minister of Marine also had a promise up his sleeve and this he lost no time in bringing to light. Never again as long as he was Minister of Marine and Fisheries, he declared solemnly, would there be a single Royal Canadian mounted policeman sent into Kent to enforce fishery regulations. Just why he did not think of this action until the by-election was getting warm, the minister forgot to tell his audience.

The Address-Mr. Doucet
During that famous by-election campaign, Santa Claus visited the county. Strange to say, this honourable and much talked of personage, who generally appears on the scene about the 24th of December, appeared in Kent county this year on the 11th or 12th December. He was very lavish in his promises, and every one of the company accompanying this personage had a different pledge or promise to make to the electorate of Kent should they vote for Mr. Bourgeois. I said that the Minister of Marine had promised that no more Royal Canadian mounted policemen would be used in Kent county. I may say that the premier of the province promised hydro development. But it remained for the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp) to make what I would term the most liberal promise of the whole procedure. He was at the time talking about railways and he said: You cannot build a railway of even seventeen or eighteen miles all at once and until we get the money voted, and we attempted last session to get the approval of parliament to build some branch lines in other parts of the country, but the bill was defeated.
And of course, wherever these gentlemen spoke, they told the people how the bill came to be defeated; they did not hesitate to say that it was the Conservatives in the Senate who had refused to sanction the passing of it. Had they been fair they might have added that in referring to the bill Senator Beique, of Quebec, one of the ablest members on the government side, strongly opposed it in these terms:
I hope parliament is not committed to the board of directors of the National Railways to such an extent that it will vote blindly any amounts that are asked for building railways. They may be given a reasonably free hand, but surely parliament is entitled to know whether the demands made and the expenditures suggested are warranted.
When the bill was voted upon there were ten in favour of it, and amongst those who strongly opposed it were six Liberal senators from the province of Quebec.


William Alves Boys: They did not tell them that.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: No, it would not have
been politic. But the following statement is attributed to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) at that time Minister of Marine and Fisheries:
The Minister of Marine expressed himself as very confident regarding the election of the Liberal candidate. The outlook is very bright, he said, and there seems to be little doubt but that the people of Kent county will show their confidence in the King administration.
Poor people!
They will avail themselves of the opportunity of being represented by a man who will have access to the members of the Cabinet-
Note the word.
-as a member of the opposition could not hope to do.


Robert James Manion: Who said that?


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: The present Minister of
Justice. I ask every fair-minded gentleman in this House whether the fact that a constituency returns to parliament a candidate who happens to be a member of the opposition should be a sufficient justification for a cabinet minister refusing to be interviewed. Now,
I want to quote from the Regina Leader of December 17. The Leader I understand is an important newspaper that advocates the same policies as my hon. friends opposite. Dealing with these promises made by hon. gentlemen opposite and by Mr. Veniot this paper says editorially that the government has no right to barter public moneys for party support.
-which is what Hon. Mr. Copp seems to have attempted in the present campaign.
The paper has no hesitation in saying that the government candidate should be defeated at the polls and has no intention of condoning this conduct on the part of the present government as the practice is absolutely indefensible. Then referring to the Minister of Marine (Mr. Cardin) at Buctouche it says that the hon. gentleman appeals for unity between the French Canadians and the Acadians -to secure the realization of legitimate aspirations. The doctrines of the Liberal party were always the same in all the provinces in 1911, 1917 and 1921. He'stated, "Premier King deserved credit for being a candidate in North York in 1917, while Doucet's friends had sent soldiers into his riding to create trouble at his meetings."
I have quoted from a Liberal newspaper; let me read somethihg else from the press. The following is a press despatch:
Never again as long as he was Minister of Marine and Fisheries, he declared solemnly, would there be a single Royal Canadian Mounted policeman sent into Kent to enforce fishery regulations.
Never in all the political history of Kent county was there such an open and unblushing attempt to blind eyes of the electorate to the sins of the government of the day by means of promises. The extension of the Moncton and Buctouche branch of the Canadian National railways to Richibucto, a bait that has been dangled before the eyes of Kent County electors by Grit politicians time after time, only to be thrown in the discard just as soon as the votes were counted, was again trotted out as an undertaking that would be carried to completion provided the government candidate was returned on the 20th.
I have here a copy of a letter sent by a friend of mine in Kent county to a Liberal friend outside the county. In it he says:
The county is plastered with Liberal orators, submerged in Liberal rum, and polluted with Liberal money. They are scared blue and they are resorting to all the tactics known to civilization, heathenism, idolatry and low-down "Injun" cunning in order to

The Address-Mr. Doucet
win. You never saw such a desperate lot of desparadoes in your life.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: The letter which my
hon. friend is quoting seems to me to be compromising. I think it should be placed on record and the name of the writer disclosed.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Would the hon. gentleman recognize the writing if he saw it?


Jean George Robichaud: Will the hon. member disclose the name of the writer?


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Now, Mr. Speaker, in
view of all these things-
Mr.	ARCHAMBAULT:	Will	the hon.
member allow me a question?


An hon. MEMBER:: One at a time.
Mr.	ARCHAMBAULT:	Will	the hon.
member not give the name of the writer?
Mr.	DOUCET:	If the	hon.	gentleman
wants a decisive answer, I say, no, inasmuch as I have not had the permission of the writer to divulge his name in this House.


Joseph Archambault: I rise to a point of order. It is a rule of the House that an hon. member may not read a letter without giving the name of the writer.
Mr.	MEIGHEN:	Mr. Speaker,	I never
heard such a rule even suggested in parliament before. What the hon. member evidently has in mind is that if a Minister of the Crown reads from a public document he must put the whole document on the table; the rule does not apply to a private member at all.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Then we have the right to say that the letter is not true at all.


Arthur Meighen: The rest of it is worse.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: If you are ashamed to give the name the letter must be untrue.
Mr. STEVENS. It is uncomfortable, but-


Mr. LOGAN:: An anonymous letter is a bad start.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Mr. Speaker, when I started to describe the means adopted by the government party to win the by-election in Kent county I did not think I would stir up such a hornet's nest. But I have here something entitled A Vicious Doctrine. It says:
Mr. Black's selection is a notice to the administration that Halifax does not approve of the heavy expenditures in public works the King government is making there, and has planned to make in the future.
I ask all fair-minded men in the House and in the country at large whether any constituency is to be punished and deprived of reasonable and necessary public works simply

because of the fact that it could not see eye to eye with the Liberal candidate? But I have some further comment upon the Kent county by-election. I am quoting from the Moncton Transcript, published in the constituency of the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp), and of course the organ of the Liberal party:
But Kent county has exercised its right in choosing the representative it prefers, and it is to be hoped that Mr. Doucet will secure for the constituency all that Mr. Bourgeois could have secured. One cannot see how that is to be expected, for in a sense he is pledged to oppose anything the government may want to do for Kent.
Well, Sir, let me state here and now that if the government is prepared to include in the estimates or in the supplementaries any votes that would be beneficial to the interest of Kent county, be it the acquisition of the Kent Northern railway or the much-talked-of extension of the Monction and Buctouche railway from Buctouche to Richibucto. I, as the humble representative of Kent county will not be in a position to vote against such expenditure.


Mr. DUFF:: Hear, hear. Safety first.


Mr. COPP:: You approve of the building-of that road?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Mr. Speaker, while to a
certain degree I am annoyed, I am not surprised at the attitude taken by hon. gentlemen opposite, because I am free to admit that the Kent county by-election must have been such a fatal blow to their hopes that they can only regard it as the sinister forerunner of what is to happen to the Liberal party when it next appeals to the country.
Before laying before the House the issues upon which we conducted the campaign in Kent county, I have a few precious gems, selected from campaign speeches made by the right hon. leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King), the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Copp) and the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) in the election of 1921. First I quote from The Transcript- certainly an organ which was not prejudiced against my friend the Secretary of State-its report of a speech made by him at that time in these words:	[DOT]
He pronounced his policy in regard to the railway situation as to be strongly in favour of retaining the I.C.R. at its old status.
The electors of Kent county were asked by the Secretary of State and others' to support the Liberal administration because they had fulfilled their promises. Have they fulfilled their promise in connection with the Intercolonial railway, when it is true that the Hanna board in 1921 had given a public

The Address-Mr. Doucet
decision that they would include in the Atlantic region the Intercolonial, the Transcontinental and all branches east of Montreal, including the Grand Trunk line to Portland? They took charge of the administration of affairs, and the Intercolonial railway was cut off at Riviere du Loup, and the Transcontinental at Monk, so the eastern section of the railway system is about one-tenth of the whole mileage.
In The Transcript of October 14, 1921, the Secretary of State is reported as follows:
Mr. Copp expressed his policy as being to take the I.C.R. out of the hands of the Toronto people who are using it for their own gain, and hand it back to the people of the Maritime provinces for whom it was built; and, furthermore, to bring back the many people who were forced to leave their homes here and go to Toronto.
You would imagine, Mr. Speaker, from the declarations on the other side condemning the stirring up of sectional prejudice that our hon. friend would never have been guilty of making such an appeal. He did, however, in 1921, in spite of the fact that Mr. D. B. Hanna at that time said:
There had not been one man taken from Moncton, but that because of his competency he had been promoted to a larger sphere; and the same thing was happening in Winnipeg. In the management of a large system there had to be a consolidation of accounts, and everyone knows there has to be a central place where the accounts can be gathered. Not one man on the board of directors wished or desired to disturb anyone, but the exigencies of the situation compelled such an action.
Now, at that time Mr. Hanna explained to the country, and to those who had been more or less opposed to him because of the fact that men had been removed from Moncton to Toronto, that in each and every case promotion had taken place. In the spring of 1923 a large number of men were removed from the constituency represented by the Secretary of State and _ were transferred to the city of Montreal. I have no fault to find with any administration of the railways that would transfer men for the purpose of bettering the efficiency of the system; but I do complain that men who in 1923 were transferred from the offices in Moncton to Montreal, and were receiving $135 per month, were, within a few weeks later, forced to see their salaries diminished to $98 per month. I have yet to hear any public pronouncement from the Secretary of State in disapproval of such reductions. May I be permitted to refer to some of the issues that were raised in Kent? I defy any member on the opposite side to quote anything to show that I personally- and Sir, I can only speak for myself, because I carried on the campaign alone-


Pius Michaud: Where was the hon.
member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson)?


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: When the hon. member
for York-Sunbury spoke, I did not accompany him, therefore I did not hear what he said. If he said anything that my hon. friends opposite object to, he will have a chance to express his opinion on that in the House. I wish hon. members to take note of the reasons why public sentiment in the county of Kent expressed itself on the 20th of December last in opposition to the present administration. In doing this I believe I am rendering a service to my county, and at the same time, if they are wise enough to give heed to it, I may be rendering a service also to the present government.
We had in mind the subject of immigration. in the first place, and regret was expressed at the extent of the exodus of our people to the country to the south of us. We spoke of increased taxation, of increased remuneration to men in high places, and of the policy announced at that time, and since put into effect, of reducing the expenditure on the civil service by turning out in the cold men in the lower positions while retaining at high salaries those in the upper places. We spoke also of the royal commissions, seven of which, I believe, were operating at that time. I need not dwell very long upon that; hon. members must have seen some of their reports. I venture to say, however, that the majority of these reports will not be read by anyone but by the man who is paid to read them. As a well-known eastern paper said, the whole sum and substance of these reports would be worth much less than thirty cents.
We dealt also with the question of railway rates; there is some dissatisfaction in connection with the present state of affairs in matters of transportation. We also made reference to the lack of markets; to the sending of Canadian goods through Canadian ports; and, last but not least, to the development of interprovincial trade. I should like, in the limited time available, to discuss these various questions, but I have , not an opportunity of doing so now, I may have occasion later in the session, to place my position on these matters fairly before the House.
I have told you, Mr. Speaker, of the great number of men bearing gifts who were in Kent county during the by-election campaign, but notwithstanding all these offers of gifts, the county could not be bought. I have here another gem which I think I should read to the
The Address-Mr. Doucet

House, dealing with the necessity to beware of
the man bringing gifts. It reads:
The good and kindly Veniot With his promises so calming To save his Liberal party From a premature embalming.
Oh, Mr. Copp, Oh, Mr. Copp,
The railway will extend,
Judicially he ever is Copp's and the people's friend.
It's sad and sorry work,
To keep the ship afloat.
But Copp will get no judgeship If Doucette "Copps" the vote.
Arthur comes in hot haste At the voice of King, his master,
To prevent a repetition Of that Halifax Disaster.
If these big guns be air guns To avert impending wreck,
They bring a long range cannon To belch from Old Quebec.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the electors of Kent county were afraid of men bearing gifts. As the Trojans said of old, "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes,"-I fear the Liberals even bringing gifts.
May I make some reference to the rewards given to those who took part in the Kent county campaign? In this instance, as you must know, failure rather than merit was being rewarded. First, we have the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Lapointe), promoted to the position of Minister of Justice. Then we have the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin) promoted to the position of Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I want to say frankly, that as there had to be a Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and as, so far, the present party has to remain in power,
I am glad to see my hon. friend in a ministerial seat. Even though he was not successful, he certainly deserves a reward for the great amount of energy he displayed in that campaign. Then we have a third man who took part in the campaign, Mr. Arthur T. Leblanc, of Campbellton. He was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick.


Pius Michaud: Does my hon. friend mean that Mr. Leblanc is not qualified for the position of Judge of the Supreme Court, or that he was disqualified because he went into Kent county?


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I did not say anything of the kind, but I will say that he was as well qualified as any other prospective candidate for the judgeship.	[DOT]


Jean George Robichaud: The hon. gentleman to your immediate right did not think so.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) can speak for
	u
himself, and it is not necessary-that I should take up the time of the House in answering for the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). There are others who took part in the Kent county by-election campaign who have not yet been rewarded. In this connection I wish to remind the House that the hon. member for Restigouche and Madawaska (Mr. Michaud) has not been rewarded. Why? Was it because he was the only one of the whole delegation who talked politics and did not raise the racial issue? I submit to my genial friend that his reward is due, and it is the vacant senatorship for the province of New Brunswick. There are two other gentlemen, one from Kincardine, Ontario, and the other from Fredericton, N.B. who also need rewards, and on their behalf I would suggest that the leader of the government ask his cabinet to create a new royal commission entitled "How did it happen in Kent?"
In order to reward all those who took part, Mr. Speaker, and there were twenty-two, I believe, you would have to create a new royal commission, and that would be for the purpose of creating national unity between the two great races of this Dominion, and to that commission I would suggest that Mr. Theriault, local member for the county of L'lslet, the member for Rimouski and the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges be appointed. They would possibly be able to determine what is requisite, and the proper means to adopt, in order to bring about national unity in this country. Their utterances are testimony to that.
An hon. member of this House asked me a moment ago if I had forgotten that I was a Farmer's candidate in 1921. In 1921 the humble member for Kent was not a Farmer's candidate; he was not a Progressive candidate. In order to show where I stood on that occasion I am going to weary the House by placing on Hansard for the edification of those who seem to glory in the fact that possibly the member for Kent was a Progressive candidate, in 1921, my platform. It is as follows:
(1)	We believe in friendly relations and the teaching of mutual respect between the two great races which compose this Dominion.
(2)	In the matter of tariff, we favor protection for our industries, in order to give our farmers, fishermen and lumbermen a home market.
(3)	We believe that the farming and labour elements of this country are not sufficiently represented in the different governments of our Dominion, and that better consideration should be given to the agricultural and industrial problems of the country.
(4)	We regret that our federal ministers of late years have not been sufficiently in touch with the different sections of the country, particularly the Maritime provinces, and we assert that this is the only way to obtain responsible government.

The Address-Mr. Doucet
(5)	We believe that the Department of Trade and Commerce should get into more intimate contact with the public in the way of pointing out and assisting in finding markets for the people.
(6)	We maintain that our representatives in Parliament should be free to support, without detriment to Canada, the party which would consider and solve the various Maritime provinces' problems, such as transportation, markets, unemployment, and the greater developments of our national resources and possibilities and in this respect we advocate:
(a)	The establishment of abattoirs and cold storage systems at central points in the Maritime provinces.
(b)	The establishment of an experimental farm in one of the north shore counties, with equal facilities for the French and English.
(c)	That Canadian trade be directed through Canadian ports and channels.
(d)	The appointment of a commissioner to make a complete study of West Indian and South American markets, and bring about the interchange of our northern products with those of the tropics, as this is the natural market for the surplus of our products of the farm, of the fisheries and of our forests.
(e)	The freeing of the Intercolonial Railway from the commission control and its restoration to Government administration in keeping with the pact of confederation.
(f)	The building of connecting links as feeders to railway main lines, thereby developing the agricultural, fisheries and the lumber industries of Canada, and particularly of the Maritime provinces.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that that is the platform upon which I stood in the last election, and I have no hesitation in stating that I believe my right hon. leader would subscribe to the essential part of that platform, which would be for the great advantage of this Dominion.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: In connection with the charges made against us on the ground of sectional appeals during that campaign, of which I was speaking, let me quote a statement made by the Prime Minister of Canada at a public meeting held at Moncton in 1921, when he asked for the support of the electorate of the Maritime provinces on the following ground:
Mr. Mackenzie King said he deplored the fact that through not following the Laurier policy the result was that Canadian made goods were being exported to foreign ports and imports being brought in through foreign ports. The remedy to this condition of affairs was the return to Liberalism so that the Laurier policy might be furthered.
In view, Sir, of the claim that the Maritime provinces were not getting their just rights let me make a point clear to the House. The rights of the Maritime provinces have been talked about, and statements with respect of them have been published in the
press, nevertheless, I maintain there is no such thing as Maritime province rights, the rights that have been ignored and the conditions that exist in the Maritime provinces are not merely a matter of concern for the Maritime provinces, they are really of Dominion wide importance. Let me quote here, Sir, a statement copied from the Telegraph, St. John, which is not by any means favourable' to the opposition party in this House. This paper states that during the months of November and December, 1923, and of January, 1924, there was a wheat export through Portland, Maine, of 6,831,294 bushels compared with an export in the same three months of 454,168 bushels through the port of St. John, whereas not one solitary grain went through the port of Halifax. At the same time the Canadian Pacific Railway had shipped through the Canadian port of St. John 6,496,460 bushels of wheat. Hence it is that the clamour for provincial rights, or the sectional appeals of which we hear so much, come from the chief organs of the party of my hon. friends opposite.
I have here, Sir, a copy of the Moncton Transcript of 2nd April, 1993, when there was no probability of a by-election in the Maritime provinces. This is what the editor of the Transcript, the official organ of the Liberal party in that section of New Brunswick and a great supporter of the Secretary of State, said, quoting the figures of the President of the Canadian National Railways as to the increased revenue:
The public will not fail to note that according to Mr. Graham, the return of the Crowsnest grain rates cost the Canadian National $6,500,000 in revenue last year. That is to say, if these extra earnings had been available the operating surplus on the whole of the system would have been $10,600,000 instead of $4,100,000. In short the West was relieved to the extent of $6,500,000 which the rest of the country made up in the form of increased taxes.
Now, we say, Sir, that if that quotation is correct, and I believe it is correct, we were perfectly justified in saying in the Kent byelection that we could not, and we would not, permit the leader of this government to sacrifice the rights of any party in order to satisfy the Progressive party in this House.


Mr. FORKE:: Very affectionate.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: If affectionate we must be, let us be affectionate to all parts of the country. I find that the rate on Nova Scotia coal from Montreal to Hamilton, a distance of 372 miles, is S3 per ton, while the rate on United States coal from Detroit to Montreal, 563 miles, is only $2.90 per ton, or 10 cents less for 190 miles greater distance. I ask my
The Address-Mr. Doucet

hon. friends who represent the constituencies of Cumberland and Pictou, and both ridings in Cape Breton, do they not believe with me that the coal industry of the Maritime provinces is not getting a fair deal at the hands of the railway board, but that United States bituminous coal receives certain concessions that we in the Maritime provinces do not enjoy?
It will be noted also that the rate of fishand these statements were made before the Railway Commission which met at Halifax a short time ago; and mark you, the express companies to-day are before the Railway-Commission and they are part and parcel of the Canadian National Railways-from Prince Rupert to Winnipeg, a distance of 1,758 miles, is $3.59 per 100 pounds, while the rate from Halifax to Winnipeg, a distance of 1,923 miles is $10.60 for the same weight. I wish to refer this item to the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) and to ask him to agree with me that the fishing industry of the Maritime provinces is not getting a fair deal.


William Duff: How long have these rates
on fish been in existence? Were they not in existence quite a number of years before this government came into power?


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I am not in a position to tell my hon. friend how long these rates have been in existence. But inasmuch as he himself admits that they are in existence to-day,
I say that, for the proper development of our fishing industry and of all other industries of the Maritime provinces, we come here not as whiners or beggars, but demanding our just rights. I am reminded that just before six o'clock I had laid bare before this House the campaign in which I ran as an independent candidate at the last election in 1921. During the recess my friends asked me what reasons I had for abandoning the independent idea this y-ear in the by-election. After the Liberal government came into power and after having reviewed their record of administration in this country, it did not take me long as it would not have taken any man with an ordinary amount of intelligence long, to come to the conclusion that the campaign of 1921 was a campaign of camouflage and a wholesale carnival of mendacity.


Mr. WARD:: I would like to ask if the
Conservative government, prior to 1921 was satisfactory7 to the hon. member in his campaign.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I had really believed, and
I had been told that, a new member speaking in this House would not be subjected to interruptions. Of course, if interruptions

have to come, they will delay me a little longer than I expected. I really intended to close my remarks before six o'clock; but I was unable to do so on account of numerous interruptions which came from the official benches. I admit they were somewhat uneasy over those recent events in the Maritime provinces which were laid bare to-day in this House and which it was right that the whole country should know. We m the Maritime provinces are not beggars; but we contend that the government is committed, because in 1903 the act creating the National Transcontinental railway explicitly stated that all unrouted traffic should be routed through Canadian ports and entirely on Canadian territory, and that the through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports. I trust my hon. friend across the floor who interrupted me a minute ago will admit that that was passed in 1903, and by the self-same party which to-day has the reins of power. In the act of 1911, respecting the construction of the Canadian Northern railway, we find identically the same thing, and in 1911, the same party was in power. In 1914, in the act respecting the Canadian Northern railway system paragraph (a) of section 6 explicitly says the same thing. Therefore, the government of this country, having acquired those great railway systems, are to my mind and, I believe, in the mind of every other hon. member in this House, committed to carrying out to the letter the provisions of those statutes. We say, further, that for the development of an interprovincial trade between the Maritime provinces, central Canada and western Canada, preference should be given to the exportation of Canadian goods through Canadian ports, Atlantic ports as well as Pacific ports, and that concessions should bo given to the transportation of our coal into central Canada for the purpose of developing an interprovincial trade, which would increase production, diminish the cost of production inasmuch as it would diminish overhead charges, keep our surplus population at home, prevent the terrible exodus of our population to the country to the south of us and stimulate our local industries. I have not time this evening to develop that question, but I hope to be able to do so in this House before very long. All this would be conducive to the greater good of this Dominion.
I wish to ask the pardon of the House for having spoken so long. I know it is not

The Address-Mr. McMaster
customary for a new member to do so, and I have possibly outstayed my welcome. This afternoon, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), while addressing the House, seemed to find it strange that my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) should go into the province of Quebec, visit some of the clergy, some of the schools and some of the convents. I see nothing whatsoever reprehensible in that. I am not going to speak for him, all hon. members know that he can speak for himself at all times; but he has been, I believe, falsely charged, and in the same boat with him, during the events that caused so much comment upon the attitude of my hon. friend at that time, were men who had left the great old chieftain on this side of the House, crossed to the other side of the government benches and supported every measure that was placed before the House. Shortly after the great D. D. McKenzie assumed the leadership of the Liberal party in this House, he said that the latch-string was in the door, the light was in the window to welcome them across. What are the facts? I need not mention the names here, but quite- a number went back. They were rewarded, some are still on the government benches, and there was just as much rejoicing over one sinner who had repented as over ninety-nine who had never sinned. Taking the whole matter into consideration, as it must be considered and looking for the greater prosperity of this Dominion of ours, vast in area, rich in natural resources, composed of the great races who have pioneered this country, I ask you, are we not above these petty things of politics? Why should we make mountains out of molehills? Are we not big enough and broad enough to cast aside these petty canvasses that are made for men to be elected upon? My sincere appeal to my compatriots who sit on the other side of the House is that in future they discard these passionate appeals on the grounds of race and religion. I can safely say that there have been no such appeals on the part of members of this party. The old Liberal-Conservative party of Macdonald and Cartier was great enough to admit within its ranks the representatives of all creeds and races, and I believe that the Liberal-Conservative party of to-day is still great enough to do the same thing. I ask therefore, Mr. Speaker, that hon. gentlemen try to be superior to politics of this character and that, when they appeal to the country in the future, they do so purely on the merits of their policies and not from the point of view of racial or religious prejudice.


Mr. ANDREW McMASTER (Brome):: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be those of congratulation to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Doucet) who has just taken his seat, our new member from the county of Kent. He has shown a mastery of a language not his own and an entire absence of nervousness which I am sure must have delighted not only his applauding friends but all those who welcome him as a member of this House. I cannot attempt to make many observations concerning the subject matter on which he has favoured the House to-night. One would have to be a native of the province of New Brunswick, nay, I should judge, of the northern part of that province to be able to deal adequately with the situation as portrayed by him. But I should say that his speech was placed on a level which appealed strongly to his companions in arms in this House, and their delight at his eloquence, their transports of joy at the recounting of the victory which has been won, reminds us of those words of Shakespeare, if I may give a certain turn to them: "Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this victory of Kent." But listening to the attack he made because appeals to special interests were alleged to have been made in this campaign- and as a lawyer I should judge that it would not be well to take at one hundred per cent the allegations that have been made in this matter-for I am afraid that the witness was not altogether disinterested-I had in my ear the echoes of a by-election in which I took part, I think in the. year 1919, in the old city of St. John in the same province. I remember how, from that corner of the House, the same sort of appeals were made at that time. Were the people of St. John told to think first of all of the Dominion? No. Were they told to think first of all of their province? No. Were they told to think first of all of their city? No, First of all was their port, the port of St. John; secondly, the city of St. John; thirdly, the province of New Brunswick; and after that if they had any public interest left, they might think of the Dominion of Canada. Under the circumstances I would commend those people who now display such ferocious virtue to see that they mend their own manners before they criticize the manners of others.
I purpose to-night addressing myself to a consideration of some of the protectionist arguments advanced, I am sorry to say, from both sides of the House; but before doing so I have a more pleasing task to perform, which for the moment I had forgotten. Let me say how the members of this House who love
The Address-Mr. McMaster

liberty, who love humanity, who love a forward looking position, have all enjoyed the delightful treat given to the House by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) this afternoon. It has been like a spring of fresh water in a dry and thirsty land where no water is. Would that we heard his voice more often in this House. And though I come of Lowland Scottish and not of Highland Scottish blood, may I claim the right of the Highlander to second sight, and say that I believe from henceforth we shall hear his voice more often in this Chamber.	[DOT]
Now let me take up the figures placed before the House by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Meighen),-I might say, the fears and figures of the right hon. gentleman. The first fear which he imparted to us a few days ago was that created in his heart by the increased exports of wood and paper from Canada, from $213,000,000 to $267,000,000 from the year 1922 to the year 1923. This increase of $54,000,000, which some might regard as an evidence of prosperity among the Canadian people, an evidence of our growth in international trade, is viewed with alarm by the leader of the official opposition. He says that we are in the position of a man who is selling off or disposing of his capital. These forests which are being cut, he says, cannot be renewed for generations. Now, the trouble with a fine speaker-and the leader of the opposition is not free from this frailty-is the fault of exaggerating. A generation is thirty years, and it does not take several generations for a tree to grow in a forest if proper forestry methods are followed. Our lumber resources are a crop which can be harvested every twenty or thirty years, and the export of our forest resources is not the enemy of our forests; the enemies of the forests are fire and insects. The other day the Premier of Quebec made a statement in reference to this matter,-he should know something about the wood business because the province of Quebec is one of the greatest proprietors of wood in the world,-and he said that fire destroyed eighteen times as much wood as the axe did, and that insect pests were responsible for more of the destruction of our forests than the acts of man.
Then the next fear was, not that we were selling, but that we were buying too much. We were buying too much of agricultural products from the United States. We sold to that country $49,000,000; we bought, $79,000,000. I always like to look more closely into figures than merely to take them at first glance. How is this $79,000,000 made up? Fruits are the first item. I have prepared, and I am going to ask permission to place it on Hansard and so save the time of the

House, a statement of what composed these imported fruits which, in 1923, amounted to just about $24,000,000:
Imports of fruits from United States
Year ending
Fresh-	Dec. 31,1923
Apples	$ 858,708
Apricots, quinces & nectarines	 105,498
Bananas	  4,725,426
Wild berries	 12,304
Blackberries,	gooseberries and raspberries.	22,888
Cherries	 105,978
Cranberries	 202,189
Currants	  241
Grapefruit	 750,358
Grapes	 747,279
Guavos, mangoes, plantains, etc	 8,754
Lemons	 807,537
Limes	 528
Melons	 378,882
Oranges	 5,731,292
Peaches	 510,685
Pears	 770,963
Pineapples	   518,204
Plums	 374,451
Strawberries	 750,294
Other fresh	fruits	 33,113
Total Fresh Fruits	$17,415,572
Dried-
Apples, dried	 $	47,235
Apricots, dried	 148,236
Currants	 102,534
Dates	 536,024
Figs	 218,685
Peaches	 153,569
Prunes and Plums	 991,466
Raisins	   2,982,127
Other dried fruits	 96,157
Total Dried Fruits	 $5,276,033
Preserved-
Citron, etc., rinds	 $	1,038
Peaches in cans	 171,177
Pineapples in cans	 392,577
Fruits n.o.p. in cans	 485,867
Fruits preserved in brandy	 63
Jellies, jams	  20,622
Olives-in brine by m'f'rs	 38,234
Olives in brine, not bottled	 27,216
Total Preserved Fruits	 $1,136,794
Fresh	$17,415,572
Dried	 5,276,033
Preserved	 1,136,794
Total Fruits	$23,924,240
Fruits which cannot be grown in our climate Fresh-
Apricots, quinces and Nectarines	$	105,498
Bananas	 4,725,426
Cranberries	 202,189
Grapefruit	 750,358
Guavos, mangoes, plantains, etc	 8,754
Lemons	 807,537
Limes	 528
Oranges	 5,731,292
Pineapples	 518,204

The Address-Mr. McMaster
Year ending Dec. 31,1923
Dried-
Apricots, dried	 $ 148,236
Currants	 102,534
Dates	 536,024
Figg	  218,685
Prunes and Plums	 991,466
Raisins	 2,982,127

Preserved-
Citron, etc., rinds	 $ 1,038
Pineapples in cans	 392,577
Olives in brine by mfrs	 38,234
Olives in brine not bottled.. .. :	 27,216

Fresh	$12,849,786
Dried	 4,979,072
Preserved	 459,065
Total Fruits from Tropics	$18,287,923
Proportion of tropial fruit imported, 76.44 per cent.
Three-quarters of these fruits were tropical. Now, unwise as, in my opinion, is the protectionist mind, I do not think our friends propose to assert in this House that bananas, oranges, lemons and pineapples should be grown in Canada under glass! Of course, a protectionist argument can be made for their growth under glass-because of the demand it would create for glass; because of the demand it would create for coal; because of the demand it would create for labour: because of these demands a very good protectionist argument can be made for growing bananas, oranges, lemons and pineapples under glass in this country. But I give credit to my friends that they do not propose such an extreme protectionist project, and therefore I simply point out that of this $24,000,000 worth of fruit which was imported, $18,287,922 represented the value of tropical fruits which could not be grown in Canada.
The next item is grain, $10,860,000. This represents soft wheat to be mixed with our harder wheat by our millers; also com. Corn used to be taxed, but when the Liberals came into power in 1896 they put Indian corn on the free list for the benefit of our cattle-raisers. Then we have gums and resins to the value $2,000,000. These compose the basic materials for our shellac makers and for other uses in the arts. Next we have vegetable oils, $6,750,000, these being the basis of many of the soaps that are made in Canada. Crude rubber and tires account for $5,500,000; seeds, for $2,000,000; raw sugar, for $4,750,000; fresh vegetables, for $3,500,000. Now, with the exception of fresh vegetables there is hardly a thing there which any wise man would say should be kept out of Canada, because 22
practically every one of them is the raw material of some Canadian industry.
The next fear is that we are selling too much again-for there is an impartiality about the fears of my right hon. and learned friend; first he fears we are selling too much, then he fears we are buying too much, and then he fears again that we are selling too much. Now he fears we are selling too many minerals in their raw state. He says:
But let us remember our duty is to see that these resources vouchsafed to us are to the utmost developed within the land that is our own, and to a minimum sent out of the country that other nations and other peoples may get the advantage of them.
This is the gospel of national selfishness- the narrow nationalist and protectionist view. It is the view of trade as being a contest, the view of trade which led the nations of Europe, prior to the war, to mark out in Africa and other less developed parts of the world "spheres of influence" so that they might control the resources and keep the markets for themselves. It was that spirit, as much as any other that led to the overwhelming calamity that broke on the world on the fourth of August, 1914. When we see that spirit demonstrated by the leader of a party, are we surprised that another prominent member of that party tells us that the life and death of the Founder of our religion is not an example to be followed but a warning to be avoided; and that another of his colleagues, not to be outdone, brings forward that quintessence of paganism which puts the rights and the advantages of one's country above morality; "May my country be always right, but my country right or wrong?" The national god set above morality! That would be the danger of allowing men holding such ideas to have control of the destinies of Canada, and care must be taken that our people understand these dangers and govern themselves accordingly.
Let me point out that the danger of this idea that a country with great natural resources has a right to play the dog in the manger, has a right to keep other nations from enjoying those resources, was noticed at the time the Peace treaty was made at Versailles, and it was endeavoured to be avoided in the Covenant of the League of Nations, for in that Covenant we find that the mandated territories, especially those in Africa, were placed under the more civilized powers, and it was provided in article 22 that in mandated territory the mandatory must allow equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of the members of the League.
But, there is another argument, and I think it is a just and reasonable one. What would

The Address-Mr. McMaster

happen to us if the United States adopted that policy: We are to hold on to all our natural resources and only export in a finished state what we want to sell? What would happen to us if the United States adopted that policy in regard to cotton? By the constitution of that country export duties are prohibited, but we have seen recently that the Americans can amend their constitution. Suppose they amended it in that fashion, suppose they put on a heavy export duty or a prohibition on the export of raw cotton, what would happen to our cotton mills? Last year we imported cotton to the value of $47,000,000 in round figures, of which $30,000,000, or two-thirds, represented raw cotton. Well, where would the Dominion Textile and the Canadian Cottons be if they were unable to get their raw cotton free into this country? It is a serious thing to think of, but it is a poor rule that does not work both ways, and it is egregious folly to propose to follow a course of conduct which, if followed by one's neighbour, may hurt you very much indeed. Coal is in the same situation. In 1923 we imported $43,750,000 worth of anthracite coal and $48,500,000 worth of bituminous coal. This coal was imported because it served our interest best to buy it in the United States. The price of coal is largely determined by the freight rate. Of course, we have immense quantities of coal both in Alberta and in Nova Scotia, but the question is, how expedient it is to haul coal those very long distances; and, of course, it would be a bad thing for us, I take it, if export duties were placed upon coal by the United States. As far as anthracite coal is concerned, a few years ago we had in Canada a shortage of coal. At that time there was a shortage of coal also in the United States, but I remember very distinctly learning with satisfaction that the American control of that time saw to it that Canada had her fair share of that indispensable article. Then, the next fear is the fear aroused by the importation of too many farm implements. That raises an interesting subject for discussion, and one into which I would call as a supporter and co-ad-jutor and joint advocate with myself the leader of the official opposition, because one of the best speeches ever made in this House in favour of the reduction of duty- on agricultural implements was made by the then member for Portage la Prairie on the 18th of January, 1911. On that occasion he moved in this House:
That in the opinion of this House, a substantial reduction in the import duties on agricultural implements is now due the agriculturists of Canada, and is in just accord with the true ends of a protective tariff. [Mr. McMaster.l


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I hear the hon. member say, " Hear, hear," and I am glad that he advocates to-night those somewhat sound views-not altogether sound, but sounder than the views he usually promulgates on trade matters in this chamber.
I would like to discuss for a few moments, Mr. Speaker, the main points of this very interesting speech. He laid down this principle, as being the true principle of protection as taught by Sir John A. Macdonald himself: that protection was required merely for infant industries, and that as soon as industries got upon their feet the tariff should be gradually reduced and taken off. This is about the most reasonable of all the protectionist arguments, and if it worked that way in practice there might be something to be said for it. But the protests which we have throughout the country to-day is one of the best evidences of how difficult it is, after the duty is once put on, to have it reduced or taken off.
Well, what were the arguments advanced by the right hon. gentleman at that time? First of all he said this-I am not going over the whole speech, but I know he will correct me if I in any way misrepresent his remarks. First, then, his argument was that the cost of production in the two countries, the United States and Canada, was substantially the same. Has that changed in recent days? I do not think so. If anything, wages are higher in the United States than they are in Canada and if one gives to the Canadian implement manufacturers their raw materials at free trade prices, allows free entry of those materials into Canada, it would seem to me that the costs of production, by reason of the somewhat higher labour costs in the United States than in Canada, should be practically on a parity.
Bis second argument was that the industry was becoming more and more centralized into a few hands. Is that true to-day? In 1911, according to the speech made by my right hon. friend on that occasion, there were seventy implement manufacturers; today there are seventy-three-our population would, I think, have increased sufficiently to make up for the difference. At any rate, 80 per cent of the manufacture of agricultural implements is to-day in the hands of eleven concerns, so certainly a centralization exists yet.
The next argument was the exports bear a large proportion to the imports. Is that true to-day? Not quite so true as it was at the time this speech was delivered, but

The Address-Mr. McMaster
still substantially true. I have the figures for 1922; about $18,000,000 worth of implements were manufactured in Canada, and of these over $5,000,000 were exported, or between 28 and 29 per cent of the total production. It was further argued that the prices for agricultural implements were lower in the United States than in Canada. Those who live in the farming districts of this country will know whether they pay more for ploughs, harrows and agricultural implements in general north or south of the boundary. I think now, as then, the price of these articles is lower in the United States than it is in Canada. Indeed, that must be the case; if it were not so, why this wail from the implement manufacturers?
Then it was asserted that the implement manufacturers were able to- sell abroad and to enter foreign countries even against hostile tariffs. Is that true to-day? I have had prepared by the Bureau of Statistics a table or schedule which I would ask leave to place on Hansard.
Exports of Agricultural Implements and Parts of (Calendar Year 1922)
Agricultural Implements and parts of	 $5,041,044
To United States	 1,355,498
Australia	 1,176,297
France	 913,796
Argentine Republic	 733,036
United Kingdom	 253,511
New Zealand	 114,202
Belgium	 112,428
Portuguese Africa	 76,547
British South Africa	 73,692
Mexico	  33,064
Russia	 30,258
French Africa	 29,980
Spain	 20,342
Netherlands		18,724
Uruguay	 16,821
Switzerland	    12,551
Sweden	 12,098
Denmark	 9,273
Newfoundland	 7,248
Norway	 6,312
Germany	 6,113
Morocco	 5.530
Finland	 4,134
Poland and Danzig	 3,821
This shows that of the $5,000,000 odd of agricultural implements which were exported in the calendar year 1922, $1,355,498 worth went to the United States, over $1,000,000 to Australia, while France, the Argentine Republic, the United Kingdom, New1 Zealand, Belguim, Portuguese Africa., British South Africa, and so on, received our agricultural implements. Indeed, the member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond), in the interesting and eloquent address with which he favoured the House last night, waxed almost lyrical in his description of how in the valleys of sunny France and on the rolling veldts of South Africa the sod was turned by the ploughs of Brantford and the golden grain 22i
was reaped ny the reapers made in that interesting city of western Ontario.
Now, I have not heard a single word from the leader of the opposition, and therefore I presume I have correctly synopsized his interesting remarks on the occasion in question. It would seem to me that every one of the conditions which were his arguments in favour of the reduction of duties prevail to-day. But we have, though not as distinguished, still perhaps as valuable witnesses as the very important witness whose words I have just quoted. What do the implement manufacturers themselves say as to their


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? Before he leaves that subject, will he be kind enough to tell the House what the duties were at the time the right hon. gentleman made that speech, and what they are to-day?


Andrew Ross McMaster: They were considerably higher then; of that there is no doubt. But the argument of the Sir John A Macdonald protectionist is that after an industry strikes a certain point, after it gets hold of the home market-not complete command of it, but a reasonable hold of it-then duties should go down and down until they come off altogether.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman say that the Canadian manufacturers have today anything like the share of the home market that they had then?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not know whether they have or not, but I do know, that now, as then, they are able to carry their goods to twenty-four countries in the civilized world and sell them when they get there in competition with the outside world.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: Hon. gentlemen always
prefer to cheer before they get the full facts; it is a wise course. Will the hon. gentleman not admit that those foreign sales have been in ever decreasing proportion since the reduction of duty?


Andrew Ross McMaster: No they have not.


Arthur Meighen: Oh yes.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I will allow the right hon. gentleman to interrupt me just in a moment. The duties were reduced some time after my eloquent and learned friend made his speech. I do not know whether they were reduced under his administration or not. Perhaps they were.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.

The Address-Mr. McMaster


Andrew Ross McMaster: The Finance Minister of that day seems to claim credit for it. It is always amusing how some of the protectionists are always trying to grasp some virtue for having taken down tariffs. I do not remember just when the duties were reduced, but they were reduced, I think, before 1920.


Arthur Meighen: The first reduction was made at the first revision, in 1912 and a very substantial one. We carry out our pledges.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am very glad, because that helps me in my argument. In the first speech I ihad the pleasure of delivering in this House on the budget, when, in long, far-off, but, I trust, not forgotten days, I was financial critic for the opposition, I brought out this fact: that in 1914, when according to the leader of the official opposition the reduction of duty should have reduced exports abroad, the agricultural machinery people had sent out of Canada no less than $8,000,000 worth of agricultural machinery. I think that if I am allowed to make this argument on this point here, there will not be much to complain of even from the corner farthest from me. Let me quote briefly from the evidence given in 1920 when a number of these various reductions had been made:
So far as the Massey-Harris Company is concerned-
Says Mr. Findlay in a statement prepared by him or on behalf of his company, and placed before the genial member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) who then occupied the important position of Finance Minister for Canada:
So far as the Massey-Harris Company is concerned, even to-day, placing no other consideration in the scales but that of money making we should be quite prepared to have the tariff taken off our implements if at the same time it were taken off everything that enters into the cost of producing them. In fact, considering how large our foreign trade is, in proportion to the whole, we honestly believe we could make more money under such a free trade condition than we are making at the present time.
But that is not all. He does not make that statement alone. I would draw your attention to this, Mr. Speaker:
On August 14, 1917, following a very full discussion of the whole tariff situation and its effect upon our company, the following resolution was unanimously passed by our directors and placed upon the minutes of the board.
That is the minutes of the board of the Massey-Harris Company
A farther discussion on the tariff situation followed, and the president submitted figures illustrating the effect of the tariff on our business, and while the consensus of opinion was, that given free materials, machinery and all other articles entering into the manufacture of our goods and the operation of our plants, we would be as well off with free agricultural implements, it was not thought desirable to make 
a statement of any kind at present with regard to the position on account of the unsettled political situation.
Why the unsettled political situation should have anything to do with an economic question as to whether the tariff should come off their goods or not, it is hard for me to say.
and the feeling that the effect of practically free trade on other Canadian manufacturing industries might be different from its effect on ourselves.
Now with these facts before us is it unreasonable to suggest that the cries of the agricultural implement manufacturers are cries made before they are hurt? But let me cite another witness. The name Cockshutt is a name which has a familiar sound to the older members of this House.
An lion. MEMBER:	Where does he live?


Andrew Ross McMaster: He lives in Brantford. For many years he was a highly respected and much liked member of this House. He was one of the high priests of protection and as a rule, protection of a higher brand than the John A. Macdonald brand, which is exemplified in this House by the official leader of the opposition. In the debates of the session. 1912-1913, the then hon. member for Brantford, Mr. Cockshutt, spoke as follows:
Speaking for myself and for my own interests, I would be prepared to say that if we got all our raw materials at an equally reduced duty, either no duty or a duty commensurate with the amount knocked off implements, we could afford, there is no question about that, to reduce the duty on agricultural implements; but it would be at the cost of displacing probably one hundred thousand men in the Dominion of Canada in all these implement works and their tributary industries that supply them with raw material.
Mr. Cockshutt was not afraid for the implement manufacturers, but he did express fears for the people in these other lines of industry whose finished product is the raw material for the implement manufacturer. Among these is the Steel Company of Canada. The Steel Company of Canada cannot have been selling a great deal of raw material to the implement manufacturers these days, because the implement manufacturers, by reason of the1 condition of their customers the farmers, have not been able to sell as much as they used to sell; but that company, I noticed with a great deal of pleasure the other day, while it made $484,000 in 1922 had made $1,400,000 in 1923.
It seems to me that on the whole the question of the implement manufacturers has been fairly adequately dealt with, and the testimony of the hon. leader of the opposition, the testimony of Mr. Cockshutt, and the testimony of the late Mr. Findlay should weigh in this House almost as much as the testimony

The Address-Mr. McMastcr
of the genial and much respected and much beloved present member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond).
The next fear of the leader of the official opposition is that the imports of rolling mills products have increased by, roughly speaking, $20,000,000 between 1922 and 1923: Now what are these rolling mill products? These rolling mill products are mostly the raw materials which are worked up by our manufacturers into more finished goods, and the fact that



IMPORTS INTO CANADA OF

[Stage Direction]
the imports have increased is an evidence, not of a lack of prosperity, not of a lack of employment, but an evidence that there was more demand by the rolling mills for this sort of raw material. I have here, and I am going to ask leave to place on Hansard,^ a schedule prepared by the Bureau of Statistics in which the whole $50,866,319 worth of rolling mill imports in 1923 are compared with the like imports in 1922, and in the third column you will find the increases.

[Stage Direction]
Rolling Mill Products
Years ended December 31
Bands, strips or sheets No. 14 gauge, for saddlery	
Hoop iron, galvanized	
Rolled bars, bands 3* cts. per lb	
Hoop, band, scroll No. 14 gauge for mfr. of gal. hoop	 [DOT] [DOT]
Hoop, band, scroll, No. 10 gauge for mfr. of cold rolled steel.
Hoop, band, No. 14 gauge for mats	
Hoop, band, No. 14 gauge, galvanized, n.o.p	[DOT] [DOT] [DOT].[DOT]:
[Stage Direction]
Hoop, band, rolled, 12 inches in width, lo gauge or thicker..
Steel 12 to 30 gauge for bed fasts	
Steel 20 to 30 gauge for corset steels	
Steel rolled for saws	
Bar iron or steel rolled, etc	
Flat steel, cold rolled, for cups and cones	
Hammered, drawn or cold rolled bars	
Railway bars or rails	
Shafting, 2\ inches in diameter	
Shafting, turned	
Steel in bars, for shovels	[DOT]	
Boiler plate, not less than 30 inches in width	
Canada plates	
Tinplate	 ,Y	
Rolled plates, not less than 30 inches in width	
Rolled plates, sheared or unsheared	
Rolled sheets, 14 gauge and thinner	
Sheets, corrugated, not galvanized	
Sheets, corrugated, galvanized	
Sheets, flat, galvanized	[DOT]	
Sheets, cold rolled, for sewing machines. [DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT]	' n1i i
Skelp iron or steel, sheared, not over 4f inches, for mfr. of rolled
iron tubes	; * v *	
Skelp, sheared or rolled in grooves for wrought pipe	
Steel, crucible, sheets for mower knives	
Rolled steel nail rods, for horse shoe nails	
Rolled round rods in coil, for chains.	v [DOT]	''V '''j _r'
Rolled round rods in coil, not over f-mch in diameter, lor
making wire	
Flat eye-bar blanks	[DOT] *		 y [DOT] * i' ' 'lie '' ' V
Steel plate, universal mill, over 12 inches wide, foi mfr. of
Steel beams,' sheets', plates for ships and vessels	
Rolled iron or steel angles, beams, 35 lbs. per lineal yeard.
Rolled angles, etc., n.o.p	' V ''''
Iron and steel bridges and parts thereof, column ,	< P
sections	
5,768
11,32.5
2,498,944
656,775
I,	919 711,507 509,902
16,455
40,803
147,259
2,862,764
2,873
79,675
789,739
153,837
15,139
91,406
207,636
985,520
5,280,865
884,230
694,588
3,340,260
II,	370 7,461
2,770,234
2,543
8,599 2,594,380 16,877 44,258 . 7,495
754,047
7,300
271,685
216,286
2,529,749
809,892
54,400
30,095,765
Increases
25,324
5,452,031
773,610
51,267
2,495
805,337
900,507
21,651
43,516
357,109
4,221,709
1,787
213,820
2,262,785
289,727
58,508
188,584
586,245
1,471,250
6,568,140
2,187,545
1,563,778
4,830,0S1
5,474
1,318
2,982,858
25,438
17,324
5.108.048 77,333 38,405
4,229
791,286
7,988
1,274,144
232,962
4.483.049 2,823,680
115,676
50,866,319
2,953,087
1,358,945
1,473,046
378,609
1,287,275
1,303,315
869,190
1,489,821
2,513,668
1 ,002,459
1,953,300
2,013,788
Now these increases amount to about $20,000,000, and of the increases $7,000,000 are on the free list. What does that showj It shows that in the opinion of those protectionists who made and who maintain this tariff it was wise
to have them come for the benefit of Canadian industries. That being the fact, is it fair or right for the leader of the opposition to say: "It will be interesting to have a calculation of how many artisans of Canada have bee*
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. McMaster
exiled from our country because of these importations." These importations exiled no artisan from our country. These importations made it possible for men to do work which otherwise they would not have had to do in this country.
Now the next point-
Henry Lumley Drayton: Before my hon. friend leaves that point I would raise the question as to whether permitting a statement to go on Hansard which has not been read is not creating a precedent.


George Perry Graham: The rule is very often
overridden. I have no doubt the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), if the House insists, will read this statement. I would be prepared to say that under the circumstances he should be allowed to place the statement on Hansard.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And what is
the attitude of the government regarding the creation of a precedent?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


George Perry Graham: Well, if this creates a
precedent, there have been several just like it.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am absolutely in the hands of the House. *
Sir HENR\ DRAhTON: Would my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) give me one reason in support of his stand. We of course, have had the practice in connection with the financial statement of the Minister of Finance and also when the Minister of Railways presents his- annual railway statement.


George Perry Graham: At the moment I recall
that it is done every year in connection with the railway statement. However the responsibility rests upon the House. The hon. member for Brome is in the hands of the House, and if any hon. member objects he will have to read this statement referred to.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Speaker, I have
no desire to place this on Hansard if there is the slightest objection to it by any hon. member. I propose to put the statement on Hansard because it is very long, and I would not impose upon the patience of the House by reading it all. I think that if it is placed on Hansard my speech, if it has any value at all, will be more readily and more easily understood and considered.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have no objection.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I did not catch my
hon. friend's last remark


Henry Lumley Drayton: I raise no objection.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Very good. I thank
the members of the House for their courtesy.
We come now to the question of woollen importations. Woollen importations from Great Britain have increased by $4,000,000. Now, $2,000,000 of this represents raw materials-raw wool, noils, and tops have increased little more than $2,000,000; yarns decreased a little from one year to another. So that, taking them all together raw wool, noils, tops and yams-these three raw materials for our Canadian mills-constitute just half of the increase. But there has been another result of this increase of woollens into Canada. The result has been that the consumers of this country are getting their socks and their stockings cheaper than they were getting them a few years ago; and I think that the interests of the men, and the women and the children who wear stockings and socks in Canada have really more claim on this, or any other government, than has the particular interest that manufacture such things. Then just before I pass from the question of knitted goods, woollen goods, I would make this observation. It may be that some of the smaller mills have gone out of business. The duty on undershirts and knitted goods is 221 per cent, 30 per cent and 35 per cent. If goods come in by St. John, or Halifax, or Montreal, you would have to take another 21 per cent off the British preference, which would bring it down to 20 per cent. Therefore these goods are protected under the British preference by a duty of 20 per cent. Surely that should be enough protection if these industries -are really native to the soil. Is it in the interests of the manufacturers themselves, if a duty of 20 per cent will not protect them, to keep them in a state between life and death by giving them higher protection? I say no it is. not and I would make this observation:	There are certain manufacturers
of knitted goods who have made tremendous profits during the last ten years including the last year. I hold in my hand a copy of the Financial Times, and I find that Penman's, a concern that manufactures woollen goods, has earned on its common stock for ten years a total of 217-10 per cent-that is, it has had a revenue of 21f per cent per annum on this common stock for ten years. Now, surety such an interest as that should ndt be afraid of having the duty on its products somewhat reduced.

The Address-Mr. McMaster


Mr. WHITE:: Will the hon. gentleman give us the returns for the last ten years?


Andrew Ross McMaster: There was 147 per cent on the earnings for ten years put back into the business. That is to say, the other earnings were distributed in dividends, and 147 per cent was put back into the business. I read here:
Out of 217.10 per cent earned on common, 1914 to 1923, 70 per cent has been paid in dividends. Ten year income equals 494.41 per cent on preferred against 60 per cent paid in dividends.
This is from the Financial Times of Saturday, March 1, 1924.


Richard Smeaton White: Does the hon. gentleman say that the return covers the years between 1914 and 1923, thus taking in the war?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Yes, it would cover the war period. No doubt the profits were very, large during the war period, but the point I want to make is this: It is not a fair representation of the textile business to place before the House to merely bring before the House those institutions that have not done well without, at the same time, bringing those that have done well.
The House will bear with me during the discussion of these long statements. I cannot say, as a member of the British House said a while ago, that I have a passion for statistics, but I think it is wise when statistics are quoted that they should be thoroughly gone into. I will just deal for a moment with the observations of the leader of the opposition on butter and cheese. The leader of the opposition has a style of oratory which we all admire. He has, as every artist has, the sense of the value of contrasts as well as the value of harmony, and just as a decorator will pick a colour here and a colour there, selecting one which will contrast beautifully with the other, so we find that the leader of the opposition has dealt with these figures. He says that the exports of butter went down in one year from $8,000,000 odd to $4,000,000, and that the exports of cheese went down from twenty-seven millions odd to twenty-three millions odd in one year. Those statements are absolutely and literally true, but the impression made would be that there had been a decrease in one year, in the same year, in the exports of both butter and cheese which would aggregate about six and a half millions, and that is not the fact. How is that impression made? It is by picking 9 p.m. out the records of butter for one year and comparing them with another, and then picking out the records of another year in order to make the comparison with cheese.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Did I hear "hear, hear"?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, from me.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I heard no signs of negation from hon. gentleman seated immediately-not angularly-opposite.	What is
the right way to make a comparison? It is to take all the dairy produce, butter, cheese, milk, fresh and cream, and condensed milk, and compare them over a period of years. I have made the comparison, and as the statement is short, it will be quicker for me to read it now ,
. than to have any discussion whether the schedule shall be placed on Hansard or not. The statement is as follows:
Exports-Dairy-Products
1921	1922	1923
Butter	$ 3,648,047 $ 8,105,395 $ 4,905,608
Cheese... 27,083,908	21,636,739	23,449,401Milk, fresh and	cream	2,435,977	3,024,725	4,888,797Milk, condensed..	..	5,641,831	3,134,590	5,104,398Total.$38,814,763	$35,901,449	$38,348,204
So here you have a falling off in one year and an increase the next. This is a case,
I think, that emphasizes the correctness of my attitude when I say:	When you receive
statistics, study them profoundly, or you will run the risk of regarding statistics as they were regarded once by a gentleman who said: "There are three degrees of untruthfulness; the lie, the condemned lie, and statistics."
I should like to turn to the address delivered by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler). I regret that he is not in his place to-night. I should like to congratulate him-and my words, of course, will reach him in due course-upon the very able presentation which he made of the financial condition of the country, a presentation which showed immense research, immense labour, and which was most attractively set forth in this House. As to his remarks upon the trade question, I do not find myself in such complete accord. He stated:
We are not a sufficiently self-contained nation. We should be self-dependent. We should not import so much foodstuffs or so much manufactured goods as we do.
As to foodstuffs, I have already wearied the House with statistics in connection with the observation made along the same lines by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). As to manufactured goods, what appears to be forgotten by the hon. member is this, that unless we are prepared to receive largely in manufactured goods the price of our premanufactured goods the price of our exports of natural products, I, for the life of me, do not know how we are going to get paid for our exports.

The Address-Mr. McMaster


Henry Lumley Drayton: What kind of credit would the hon. gentleman think would be made available by the payment of our annual indebtedness out of this country, a very large amount of which indebtedness is held in England, some $260,000,000?


Andrew Ross McMaster: No doubt we have an annual indebtedness to be paid and some of it is due in England. I would imagine that a 'great proportion of our debt which has been due in England, has already been transferred to the United States. I have no need to press the point, because I observe the-hon. member agrees with me. I doubt whether we have a great deal due in England now, though we have a certain amount, and of course Great Britain owes us on national account a considerable amount of money, some $10,000,000. I think on the whole, at this time in the world's history, Great Britain will have to pay us for the goods which we send her.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am afraid she will. As a matter of fact, I do not believe our farmer friends are going to ship grain which they do not get paid for, and I am sure our millers are not going to ship flour unless they get paid for it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has my hon. friend made any calculation as to the amount of the annual indebtedness of Canada?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I have not made any calculation as to the exact amount of our indebtedness in Great Britain, and I do not think it could be made, for the reason that a great deal of our securities that represent debts which we contracted in days gone by through the issue of bonds in London, went over to the United States when Great Britain was borrowing heavily from the United States during the war, and also that vast quantities were bought back by ourselves. I remember when my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) was Minister of Finance, he placed a sort of voluntary embargo against the re-importation of our Canadian securities from London for the purpose, he said, of maintaining exchange rates.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is quite wrong about that. It was not for the purpose of maintaining exchange rates; it was for quite a different reason, but that is an extraneous matter. Would my hon. friend give us his idea, as a financial expert, what the sum really is? I am speaking, not about our indebtedness in England alone, but about our foreign indebtedness. It has been placed at various sums. The lowest I know of is

$260,000,000 a year on interest account, whether he accepts that or not.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I cannot accept that without full opportunity to examine into the whc,le situation. The point I wish to make is an<l I do not think it can be gainsaid

that when we export goods from Canada, we have to be prepared to take payment for those goods in large measure in manufactured articles coming from abroad. I quite agree with the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) that we owe money abroad, but I cannot say how much money we owe abroad. I think in view of the transfers of securities from the Old Country to the United States and to ourselves during and since the war, any estimate made is merely an estimate and cannot be accepted as definite, though I do not doubt for a moment that we still owe a considerable amount of money outside of this country. But I would say that it was mostly in the hands of United States, and not of British, investors; and if we are going to continue to send vast quantities of our raw materials and of our manufactured natural products, such as flour, to the markets of Britain and Europe we must be prepared to take payment in goods. Now, how do nations adjust their trade balances? In days gone by, when the balance was only a little one way or the other, it was done in gold. But now the export of gold from one country to another is practically forbidden. A nation may pay in services for the goods which it receives, and no doubt a certain amount of our raw materials and our flour which we send to Great Britain is paid for by insurance and shipping services which the people of the Old Land give to Canada. There is however no question that in the ultimate analysis the great medium of payment for our goods which we ship is goods of a different sort which we receive in return. The point I want to make is that you cannot interfere with the flow of goods into a country without interfering at the same time with the export of goods from that country. That is not merely a principle'that is current in the classrooms of college professors of political economy, it is the foundation stone of international banking and is a fact that is known to every international banker in the world. What do the ships carry which we see leaving Montreal? Sometimes you will see a tramp steamer which is loaded entirely with wheat, carrying nothing else,-it may have a few deals spread here and there in order to prevent the wheat from shifting on the stormy sea. But the typical cargo, as I was informed by one of the head shipping men in

The Address-Mr. McMaster
Montreal when I was there last week end, is wheat, cheese and packed meats from Chicago or Canada. That is the typical cargo of the liners leaving Montreal; and on the ships coming in we get all sorts of goods from the Old Country.
I do not want to dwell too long on this point. Let me take another. Can protection increase employment in the lump or as a whole? It cannot. And this is the reason. It is quite possible that if you protect one industry you may give more employment to men engaged in that particular line than you would if you allowed matters to follow their course. But you cannot increase employment as a whole, because when you get goods into the country they are paid for by something you produce in the country itself, and the production of those goods gives as much employment as if you manufactured or produced what is imported. The only difference is this, that where you allow trade to flow freely the labour and capital of the country will flow into the channels which will produce the greatest wealth instead of being diverted, as they often are, into lines of activity which really are an economic waste so far as the national wealth is concerned. Let me give two examples. Before the war a certain British shipbuilder tendered for six ships to be built in Great Britain. He was able to tender lower than anyone else because he could buy his steel very cheaply in Belgium. But, you may say, the steel workers of Great Britain were deprived of the work of making that steel which would go into the ship. That argument is unsound, because the ships would never have been built in Great Britain unless the shipbuilder had been able to get cheap steel from Belgium. The ships would never have been built, and neither the shipbuilders in Great Britain nor the steelmakers in Britain would have had any work. But being able to get cheap steel from Belgium the shipbuilder was in a position to give employment to labour in Great Britain; and while the steelmakers there had nothing to do with * that particular order they no doubt were working on some other order.
. There is a famous economist in the United States, William F. Culbertson, who is on the tariff board of the American government. He cites a case to show how import duties will interfere with trade and business, and therefore with labour. In the production of high grade steel a manufacturer must have a substantial supply of tungsten, chromium and manganese. A duty is imposed on these minerals by the tariff law of the United States of 1922. It therefore became necessary
to give compensatory duties to protect the maker of this high grade steel in the American market; and as far as the American market was concerned he was almost as well off as before. But the manufacturer, when he went into the foreign market, was at a disadvantage as against the steel manufacturer who was able to get tungsten, chromium and manganese free of customs duties. In that way protection must always reduce labour in so far as it prevents labour from working for a larger market, it is bound to increase the cost of production. Of course, the fear that lower duties must result in unemployment disappears when one grasps the way in which international trade is carried on.
Perhaps I might be allowed at this point to refer to an observation made by the hon. member in connection with preferences. He said in the course of his remarks that we gave preferences to Great Britain because we wished to increase our exports to that country and hoped that at some time or other Great Britain would give us preference in her markets. I do not believe that was the reason why preferences were given. They were given, to a certain extent at least, as a matter of profound and clever political strategy. That is something that may possibly be advisable at times, although I am not particularly fond of it. For years before the election of 18% our Tory friends carried on a campaign of waving the old flag. In 1891 Sir John A. Macdonald said:	"A British
subject I was bom; a British subject I will die," and he denounced the Grits because they proposed reciprocity with the United States. In 18% the flag was waved, as it has been on some occasions since-the same tactics have been pursued since that time. What did the Minister of Finance do in 1897? The Liberal party had promised a reduction of duties, and so he reduced the duties by giving a substantial British preference, thus rather spiking the guns of his political opponents who had wreathed themselves about with the Union Jack and pretended1 to be the sole depositors of Imperial sentiment and British loyalty. But even there the matter was done not altogether to my liking, because some of the duties were raised before the preference was given. Preferences may have their place where two protectionist nations decide to move towards free trade, and each one gives to the other a certain facility in his market. It is a sort of reciprocity. It may be, and I think is, justified where a country moving from a protectionist status to a freer trade status gives
The Address-Mr. McMaster

The Address-Mr. McMaster
manufacturer. Now, my hon. friend, when I was trying to lead him into a statement in that regard, failed to be led, so I had to go to the figures to make my proof. I find that for the last calendar year the dutiable goods coming from Great Britain amounted to $125,000,000 and that the dutiable goods coming from the United States amounted to almost three times that sum, $361,000,000 while from the United States we imported just about four times as much goods as we did from Great Britain-in fact, fibres and textiles are the only manufactured goods in which the United Kingdom is in any way a competitor with the United States in our markets, that is, as reflected by the trade returns. Of fibres and textiles, $74,000,000 worth came from the United Kingdom and $78,000,000 from the United States, and as to all the rest-iron and its products, nonferrous metals, non-metallic minerals, and chemical products-we find that the amounts received from the United Kingdom are trifling in comparison to the amounts received from the United States. So I think I can say with a fair degree of accuracy that the great competitor for our manufactures is not the United Kingdom, not France, not Italy, not the countries of Asia, but the United States, and that wages in the United States are if anything higher than in Canada. So that I think the maintenance of tariff for the purpose of protecting us from cheap labour falls to the ground.
And after all, does cheap labour actually involve low labour costs? Not at all. Very often the best-paid labour is the cheapest in the long run. In countries like the United States and Canada the efficient well fed and ambitious workman, although paid a higher wage than the workman of the same class in Great Britain, France or Italy, who has not the idea that he has to "ca' canny" or go easy but believes he should do the best he can for his employer, that he should be prepared to mind as many machines as it is reasonable for him to mind, the workman not imbued with the idea of going as slowly as he can but with the idea of doing as much as he can-that man is in the long run the cheap workman, and he is much cheaper at a high wage than the man with less ambition and less capacity at a much lower wage. And then, of course, we must distinguish between nominal wages and real wages. Protection does not, in my humble opinion, raise real wages. It may possibly, by raising the cost of living, bring about a certain increase of the nominal wages, but not of the real wages. What are the facts? Does protection increase real wages? I take it that it does not. Let me make my point clear.
'Mr. McMaster.]
Protection cannot increase the aggregate wealth of any people. Protection is a tax; protection is a method whereby the government undertakes to direct the labour or capital of the country into one channel rather than into another. Now, the greatest aggregate wealth will be created if labour and capital are allowed freely to find, and they will do so, the channels *which will give the greatest economic return. Therefore, under free trade will you get the greatest aggregate of wealth.
Now, what are your wages? Wages are the reward which labour is able to extract from capital. Does it do that better under protection or under free trade? What does protection do? Protection has a tendency to make capital coalesce into larger and larger groups; the larger the group the more power it has. Where do we find the strongest labour unions -in the United States under protection, or in Great Britain under free trade? The fact that we have a Labour government in England today I think adequately answers that question.
I am afraid I have delayed the House for a very long time, and I must ask the pardon of the members for doing so. I have endeavoured to point out the reasons why I believe that the protectionist appeal is a mistaken appeal for this country. The protectionist is fighting in this country against the facts of nature and the facts of geography. We cannot be a self-dependent country. We have got practically only one climate; we are a fairly narrow country, that is, the inhabited part of our country stretching along the northern confines of the United States. We need to trade freely. We need to have the labour and the capital of our country directed into those channels where the greatest economic wealth can be afforded. I do not know how we are to support the economic burdens which we have upon us unless we follow that policy. I ask no government to do anything of an extreme nature, but I do ask this government to see that when they place laws on the statute book reducing the duties, those laws are not defeated by regulations. Let me give just a few examples. A client of mine was accustomed to bring in waxed paper from the Old Land for the purpose of wrapping up his loaves; he was a baker. On that wrapping paper was his name and trade-mark. For some time he brought it in under a 22J per cent duty. You would have thought that was a high enough duty, but what happened? The Department of Customs declared that was advertising matter. It was no more advertising matter than his carts bearing the same label were advertising matter when they went round the streets of Westmount delivering his

The Address-Mr. McQuarrie
bread. But that was regarded as advertising matter and taxed at a much higher rate.
I have a letter in my pocket from a man in the western part of Canada protesting that when he brought in apples that were taxed at the rate of 30 cents a box, which had been bought in the open market and on which no special discount was given, the Customs made an arbitrary ruling that these had been bought too cheaply and that he must pay an extra 16| cents per box, which brought up the duty on apples to a 50 per cent ad valorem rate.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Could my hon. friend tell me.the date of that letter? When did this happen?


Andrew Ross McMaster: The letter is dated
March 7, 1924, and reads:
During the month of February we purchased several cars of apples from Yakima, Washington State, U.S.A., at 90 cents and some at 85 cents per box F.O.B. there. The duty on these apples was assessed at the rate of 90 cents per barrel or 30 cents per box; but on the top of this the Customs under the Dumping Act have added a further charge of 16J cents per box. They claim we bought the apples less than they were worth, although these apples were offered and are still being offered freely at same prices.
What the Customs should realize is that they are an organization for collecting revenue on things that come in, not for the purpose, under various pretexts, of keeping things out. I ask for nothing unreasonable. I know that when a country has followed for many years a certain system, that system must be changed with care and discretion. I believe that there are no people in this country whose desires are other than mine in regard to the trade question. We want action; we want prudent action; but we want action visible to the naked eye. I speak for myself; I have no right to speak for any other; but I confidently believe that I represent the feelings
of a large number of people in this country, and the measure of the support which such people will give to this government will be in proportion to the spirit of true liberalism and of true progress which it demonstrates in the difficult task of governing and leading this country forward to a better and a finer condition of affairs.


Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: As I listened to the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. McMaster) I wondered if the government could actually be so unkind when the Redistribution Bill comes up again as to abolish the constituency of Brome; and in that eventuality would it be possible for the hon. member to find another constituency?


Hance James Logan: Lots of them.


William Garland McQuarrie: It would be a great loss to this House and to the country if the hon. gentleman had to leave us.


Mr. CALDWELL:: No danger.


William Garland McQuarrie: We cannot blame the government for wishing to decapitate the hon. gentleman, nor can you blame the hon. gentleman for leaving the government side of the House. The hon. gentleman is a very eloquent and convincing speaker, but so far as I can see he is not able to convince anyone but himself. Hence his position of splendid isolation at the tail-end of the House. He was not able to convince the cabinet, nor was he able to convince anyone on his side of the House. I doubt very much whether he will be able to convince anyone on the benches immediately adjoining his seat, where the Labour party sits, nor on the benches to my left; for if he did the only effect would be for them to vote against the government, which I think is practically impossible.
May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to add my words of congratulation to the mover (Mr. Kelly) and the seconder (Mr. Lapierre) of the Address. With a great many of the things that they said I am, of course, unable to agree, for obvious reasons. One thing I remarked while the mover was speaking and that was the vociferous applause of the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell), who seemed to take quite a fatherly interest in the Address.
May I also express regret at the absence of the Minister of Finance who commands the respect and admiration, I think, not only of all the members of the House but of the people of Canada as a whole. I think it is a distinct loss to Canada that he is unable to occupy his position in this Chamber during the present session.
I regret also that the former Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) is not able to occupy the position which he used to hold. I must say that I do not regret that the former Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) is now Minister of Justice. He took an interest in his late department, and I have no doubt he will take an equal interest in die Justice department which in my opinion requires some attention. In regard to the former Minister of Justice there is a story current which may or may not have any foundation; I will give it for what it is worth. It is said that the late Minister of Justice was asked if he had given up his position because he was really ill, or if there were other reasons for his retirement. He said that while it was quite true he was far from well, he was not as sick as the Liberal party.
The Address-Mr. McQuarrie

May I also be permitted to congratulate the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Doucet) upon his maiden speech. I think he did splendidly. He is an asset to the Conservative party, and I predict that he is the forerunner of a great many more of his race who will, in a comparatively short time, line themselves up with the Conservative party. I have been wondering about something in connection with the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Vien). We saw in the press not very long ago that the hon. gentleman had been appointed Deputy Minister of National Defence and we thought-at least I did when I came down here-that congratulations were due him. Now I find the newspaper forecast has not been realized; surprising to say the 'hon. gentleman is still in his place in this Chamber. I have been trying to account for this and am wondering whether it is possible the government has come to such a state that it is afraid to open a constituency in Quebec. It looks very much as though that might be the case, and I think, particularly after what has happened in Halifax and Kent that is the explanation.
My congratulations are also due to the new Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin). I was rather surprised to hear that he bad been placed in that important position because, so far as I was aware, he had had nothing to do with fisheries up to the date of his assuming cabinet rank and there are certain hon. gentlemen opposite who have taken a very active interest in the fisheries. My mind dwells particularly on the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) who was the great critic on fishery questions when he was in opposition, and has been chairman of the Committee on Fisheries during the present parliament. I have been wondering whether there was a reason for the failure to promote the hon. member for Lunenburg, and thinking that perhaps the government was afraid to open up that constituency also. There is another hon. member of this House who might have been appointed to that position and that is the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork). He, of course, is from British Columbia and has been very much interested in the fisheries there for a great many years. Beyond all doubt British Columbia is entitled to further cabinet representation. Under the late government British Columbia was represented in two important portfolios, namely, Agriculture, and Trade and Commerce. It would have been a fit and proper thing on the part of the present government to have chosen an additional cabinet minister for 
British Columbia, but it did not do so. The reason, perhaps, is the same as in the other cases-the government is afraid to open a British Columbia constituency. I am very doubtful indeed whether it would be possible for this government to elect even a cabinet minister in that province.
Sir, as I have already said we have a new Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I had the pleasure of a few minutes' conversation with him the other night, and he very kindly consented to give me an audience so that I might go into matters relating to the British Columbia fisheries with him. I think from the attitude he adopted towards me that night, that we shall find him a man Who is willing to see what can be done in his department. British Columbia as hon. members are aware, is a province where the fisheries are important and require, and should receive, consideration. There are a number of matters which are entitled to consideration and I think should be looked into. I had the privilege of discussing them with the present Minister of Justice, and I think he could advise the new Minister of Marine and Fisheries that the British Columbia fisheries should be looked into. There is, for instance, the Fraser river which was the greatest salmon fishery stream at one time. On the Fraser river in 1913 something over 700,000 eases of sockeye salmon, perhaps the best grade of salmon on the world's markets were packed. But there has been a falling off in the pack. We have big years every four years. The pack in 1913 was one of the big years. In 1921 the last big year only 50,000 cases of sockeye salmon were packed on the Fraser. Sockeye salmon is worth approximately $15 a case. So the new minister will comprehend immediately that the situation requires looking into. If it is possible to do anything, no time should be lost. I am convinced that something can be done. The most important feature is to continue negotiations with the authorities of the state of Washington. They are also suffering from the depletion of the fisheries in the same proportion as we are.
I would like to see the new minister take the question of the Fraser river fisheries up with the board of the state of Washington and see if something can be done. An arrangement might have been made with the authorities of that state whereby the Fraser river would be closed to sockeye fishing for a number of years. They were willing to adopt a close season for a period of years, but they would not say what would 10 p.m. happen at the conclusion of that term, and they were not prepared

The Address-Mr. McQuarrie
to give any assurance they would not again resort to the old methods which were calculated to deplete the supply. If that means simply restoring the sockeye salmon for the Americans there does not seem to be very much in the proposition. We would like to have an arrangement whereby, at the end of a closed period, the Americans would agree to abide by certain rules and regulations similar to our own. It may not be necessary to close the river entirely for that period, and I do not think it is or will be. As a matter of fact, I can state to the minister, that all the fishing interests in British Columbia, the canning associations, the fishermen and the businessmen are all agreed-they can get together on it-that no sockeye fishing should be allowed prior to the 1st August in any year. That would give the early fish, the ones which go up to the upper regions of the river, which have been absolutely depleted, a chance to ascend the stream and get to those spawning grounds. That might be tried out, and I may say that that opinion has been expressed by some very eminent authorities on fisheries.
There are a number of other matters in connection with the fisheries of British Columbia. I have placed on the order paper certain questions as to the very important recommendations contained in the report of the British Columbia Fisheries Commission, 1922. I am asking if the government intends to do anything to give effect to those recommendations. I hope the minister will look mto the matter, and I think if he studies the question, he will come to the conclusion that those recommendations should be carried out.
I should like for a moment, to refer to one feature of the address delivered by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork) in this debate. That is as to the central organization in British Columbia. I must state positively that . I cannot agree in any particular with the hon. member for Skeena. I think it would be a mistake to do away with the central organization. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, whether any business concern, with its head office in the East and having a branch or wanting to do business in British Columbia, would not establish a central organization there, a British Columbia office, as it were, which would administer, to a certain extent, the British Columbia business? I think that would be the case rather than that the concern should have representatives in the important cities and districts of British Columbia and have no central organization whatever. The desire of the hon. member for Skeena for economy in this connection would
not be attained. He has stated that we might save some $50,000 by doing away with that central organization. I do not believe that. There are three districts, and he proposes that each one of those three districts should communicate with Ottawa directly. I believe that instead of having the expense of one organization there as you have now, you would have the expense of three, and the total cost to the country would be thereby multiplied and not decreased. There is a suggestion which I would like to make to the minister and which, it seems to me, is worthy of consideration, if he desires to effect economy in the fisheries administration of British Columbia. Prior to very recently, the central organization in British Columbia was located at New Westminster. They have there a government building, a fisheries building, with ample accommodation for the office. The office was moved to Vancouver where space was rented in one of the large blocks at quite a large rental. If the minister will return that central office to New Westminster, not only might the rental be saved, but I think the staff might be decreased. That is to say, you might use the staff at present in New Westminster with the central organization and thereby possibly eliminate some of the employees. But in any event, by returning the central organization to New Westminster, you would effect a very considerable saving and no one would be hurt. It takes only about twenty-five minutes to go from New Westminster to Vancouver, and there is a first class pavement all the way. There is no reason why the cannery men whose head offices are located at Vancouver, when they are required to do business with the central office, could not either telephone or come over to New Westminster. The really serious situation in connection with British Columbia at present exists on the Fraser river. New Westminster is right on the Fraser river, and it seems to me that that is the proper place for the fisheries office to be where it had been for many years. The offices were taken away without any previous intimation to myself, although I happened to be the member for that constituency. I later on objected, and in that objection I received the support of all the members from British Columbia, with the exception of the members for Vancouver, who took no active part at all in the matter. I think the same condition would prevail now and that almost complete unanimity would be found amongst the members from British Columbia on the question of returning the fisheries office to New Westminster.
The Address-Mr. McQuarrie

In referring to the Fraser river, might I also touch on another matter which was brought up by the hon. member for Skeena, that is in connection with grain elevators? I listened with great interest to what he said about Prince Rupert, and I am not going to contest any of his statements in regard to the attractions which are offered by Prince Rupert as a shipping point fcr grain. But I say that New Westmmstei is on the main line of the Canadian National railways. The Fraser river is the first point where grain could be loaded on boats. The Fraser has every facility for the location of grain elevators. The Canadian National Railways, if the question were left with them, would express themselves, no doubt very freely, in favour of locating elevators on the Fraser river. The Canadian Pacific Railway has already said the same thing; it has done more than that; it has acquired large tracts of land on the Pitt river which is a tributary of the Fraser river at Port Coquitlam not very far removed from the Fraser river. My hon. friends from the prairie provinces will be interested in this because it is a matter of economy, a matter of expense, pure and simple, a matter of cost, cost of transportation. We had a visit this year from a number of our Progressive friends who inspected the Fraser river and its facilities. The question is one of shipping grain at the least possible expense, and I need only point out that to take the grain from New Westminster to Burrard Inlet at Vancouver costs something like $15 a car. Besides that, there is a good deal of congestion, and it may be difficult to obtain sites there. In any event, the sites would be very expensive. There is, on the other hand, by locating the elevators at New Westminster, a saving of $15 a car. It may be said by the shippers that the railway companies will have to bear that expense. You know what that means. If means that although the railway company bears the initial expense, at some time or other, eventually, someone else will have to pay, and it will have to come out of the traffic. I suggest that the Fraser river be given a trial. I know that this to a large extent is a matter for private enterprise, but we are hoping that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King, Kootenay), who has interested himself in the Fraser river, will continue the work which has been carried on there for some time in connection with the channel of the river. That channel has been greatly improved; we have had quite a good deal of shipping in the last couple of years, 
and the ships of the Canadian Merchant Marine and of other lines are coming there pretty frequently for lumber. The Fraser river is the centre of the lumber industry of British Columbia, about one-third of the lumber out in the province being cut by the mills on that river. The business is there, and I respectfully ask that the Minister of Public Works continue the work he has been doing.
I quite agree with other hon. gentlemen who have spoken about the necessity for strict economy, and it seems to me that we might begin the practice of economy in this House. In any event I think it would be advisable that the session should be as short as possible consistent with the business that comes before the House. I was pleased to hear from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that the cost in connection with parliament was not so large as had been reported; but still we all know that it costs a good deal to keep this House going. I suggest that m order to reduce the length of the session we might meet each day at 2.30 instead of 3 o'clock in the afternoon. I can see no reason why that should not be done. Personally, I would go so far as to advocate meeting at 2 o'clock, but that perhaps might be inconvenient for the cabinet. I do think, however, that we might try 2.30 and save half an hour each day; over a period of four or five months that would represent a considerable economy of time.
I would call the attention of my hon. friends to my left to a statement made recently by the Right Hon. William M. Hughes, former Premier of Australia, who said that three parties were a luxury which no country could afford. I think the Progressive group might take that suggestion into consideration. They could divide things up, some of them coming over here and others going on the opposite side of the House. I do not suppose that they would all go over to the other side; but when they are voting with the government, or at least the great majority of them, there is no reason why they should not be on the opposite side, thus dispensing with this "luxury". I think that sane economy should be practised, and not false economy which would tend to retard the development of the country, I regret the policy of the government which has resulted in the discontinuance of federal aid to highway construction. A great deal of,very valuable work was done by means of that grant, and when we realize the fact that tourists who come to this country leave many millions of dollars, and that many millions more would be spent in the country if we had good roads, I think
The Address-Mr. McQuarrie
the government should see the advisability of reconsidering its pi licy and of again doing something to assist in the construction of highways. It is also a matter for regret that the government has discontinued the aid to agricultural education. That was something that was doing considerable good. In our part of the country a great deal had been accomplished through the women's institutes and other organizations which were supported from this grant. I am very sorry indeed that the government saw fit to discontinue this aid.
Let me refer for a moment to the question of old age pensions. I think the time has arrived when this country should do something in this regard. I shall not go into the question at great length to-night, but we have seen how the matter works in other countries that are smaller and less prosperous than our own, and it seems to me that the time has come when it should be seriously considered by the government of this country. While I am on this subject I might also mention another of great importance; I have reference to the grant to the Victorian Order of Nurses. That grant has been $5,000 a year, which, in my opinion, is a disgracefully small sum for a country like this to contribute to an organization of that kind. The health of the people is a matter of vital importance; it is the most important thing that public money can be expended upon. If hon. members had the privilege of following one of the Victorian Order *Nurses on her rounds he would see what a splendid, noble, heroic work these nurses are doing. He would find such a nurse going to homes that would not otherwise receive the attention of any nurse; he would find her going into homes where the people could not afford to pay for the services of a nurse; he would find that the organization was doing a great deal of charitable work. "In these circumstances I think it would be a small thing to the country, and the increased taxation would be hardly appreciable, if that grant were made twenty-five thousand dollars instead of five thousand. The committees throughout Canada, working under the patronage of Her Excellency, are doing very valuable work voluntarily, without remuneration, and they are having a hard time. I seriously urge the government to take the matter into consideration.
Now I come to the Civil Service. There is no doubt in my mind that care should be exercised in the dismissals that are made in the Civil Service, because it is a matter of much importance that efficiency be not impaired. I think that a fair living wage should be provided for all who are retained in the 23
service. I do not believe in keeping anyone in the service who is not doing his or her work or who is not of value to the country. I do say, however, that those who are retained should receive a fair living wage, and they should be decently treated just as the employees of an ordinary employer would be treated. The stability of salaries should be established; I do not believe in the principle of bonuses at all. To my mind it is a pernicious system, and more than that it seems to be-in fact I know it is-unsatisfactory to the employees themselves, for they do not know where they stand. I have seen recommendations which have been made by the Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada to the government, and I do not think these recommendations are unreasonable. They ask for a salary revision and I think it should be granted; they request that the whole matter be taken up and salaries revised and put upon a fair and reasonable basis. Then there is the matter of superannuation. It is a most unfair thing in my opinion, that a man or woman who has served the country for a number of years, should be turned out upon the street without consideration. We should have superannuation, and I hope the government will do something in that direction,
I agree with those who say that taxation must be reduced, and there are ways of doing it which probably will be discovered by the new Auditor General or by the cabinet themselves. At least I hope so. I think the sales tax should be revised, because unquestionably it is not equitable in its operation. I will give an example of this in connection with our lumbering industry. A tremendous export business has grown up in British Columbia lumber, but those engaged in it are up against the sales tax. For instance, if a saw-milling company receives an order, say, from the Canadian Pacific Railway, for a shipment of lumber, the price will be quoted plus 8 per cent sales tax; if the railway company goes to a licensed wholesaler, the price quoted will be plus 3 per cent sales tax; if an order is given by the Dominion government-and a good deal of lumber is used there by the Public Works department as the minister is aware-the Dominion government has to pay a 6 per cent sales tax, while if the provincial government is the buyer no tax is payable at all. Without going into further detail, I need only say that this condition of affairs is not good business, and there must be a revision of the tax.
Then the income tax should be reduced. I would suggest that life insurance premiums be exempted. I think it is a wise policy to



The Address-Mr. McQuarrie
encourage our people to provide protection for their families, and I am not a life insurance agent; I do not need to argue the question. In the province of British Columbia there is an exemption for premiums of life insurance on the life of the taxpayer "not to exceed one-sixth of the total of the gioss annual income of the taxpayer, if paid, receipts therefor to be produced to the assessor on demand." That has been the British Columbia law for some time, and is, I understand, also the law in England.
As to the tariff, I wish first of all to state that we in British Columbia are diiectly as well as indirectly interested in the prosperity of the prairie provinces. They are our neighbours and we are affected immediately by conditions there. In fact, our seaports are claimed by the people of those provinces as their own. The grain from all of Alberta and a great part of Saskatchewan will in a comparatively short time go out by the Pacific coast ports. Estimates have been made by those who know what they are talking about that inside of five years 200,000,000 bushels of grain will be exported through the Pacific ports. Hon. members will appreciate what that means to us. Therefore I say advisedly that we are interested in the prairie provinces in more ways than one. When the farmers on the prairies make, money they come to British Columbia to reside, and thereupon their ideas on the tariff completely change-as a general rule they become good Conservatives. I know of them, men who had been heads of locals and had occupied other positions of prominence in the prairie provinces, supported me during the last election. We are glad to have them come to our province, and if any -method can be devised to revise the tariff in such a way as to benefit the prairies without seriously hurting us, why every man and woman in British Columbia will hold up both hands for it. We are prepared to co-operate with the farmers of the prairies. Therefore I hope some solution of this difficult question will be arrived at.
On the 10th instant I asked the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Graham) a question in regard to the American tariff on Canadian wheat, and I will read the question and answer as they appear in Hansard of that date:
Mr. W. G. McQuarrie (New Westminster): Might I ask if the government contemplates taking any action, by way of retaliation or otherwise, in regard to the proposed increase in the United States tariff against Canadian wheat and wheat products?
Hon. members will note that I said, "by way of retaliation or otherwise."
[Mr. McQuarrie. 1
Hon. G. P. Graham (Acting Prime Minister): "Retaliation" is a bad word to use in business, if the object of trade is to make a profit. I would not like to say that the government had even been considering retaliation.
Well, apparently they have not been considering anything else in that connection. That is the great trouble with this government-they are inactive, they do nothing.


George Perry Graham: The member for Vancouver did not say so.


William Garland McQuarrie: You need not take my word for it. I can quote to you from a good Liberal British Columbia newspaper on the subject-a newspaper which, as far as I know, has always supported this government. This is a short extract from the Vancouver Sun of the 17th January last, and is from the clever pen of John P. McConnell:
What is the outstanding fact in Canadian politics to-day? "Inaction of the government," is the answer.
Inaction in progressive legislation, inaction in carrying out promised programmes of development, inaction in reducing taxation, inaction in bringing in immigration, inaction in reducing emigration, inaction in promised tariff reforms, inaction in reducing the expenditures to meet revenues, inaction in reducing the national debt- everywhere you look you see a dreary, silent wilderness of dormant inaction.
This is the most general complaint I hear in Toronto and Montreal by both friends and enemies of the government, in business and political circles.
Inactivity, smug complacence of the government in face of crying demands of the country, are getting on the nerves of the business community. . .
Recent happenings in the East do not tend to increase confidence either in the government's intentions or ability to remedy matters.
That is the trouble in connection with the tariff. In British Columbia, in my constituency for instance, we are very much interested in the tariff. I can tell my Progressive friends that I represent something like 20,000 farmers as well as about 25,000 other people. In my constituency there is the best ' farming land in British Columbia, the delta of the Fraser river. We produce almost anything that could be produced anywhere, with the possible exception of tropical fruits. We have to admit that "we have no bananas," but otherwise we can produce anything. It is a great dairying district, and besides we produce hay and oats, vegetables of all kinds, and fruits. We have the greatest poultry business of any part of Canada, I suppose. We are right up against this question of the tariff, there is no doubt about it. I do not think my Progressive friends would be anxious to injure us, except perhaps, to benefit themselves in their own respective districts.
The member for Yale (Mr. MacKelvie) has spoken about fruit; I am interested in fruit, too. We grow in my constituency and

The Address-Mr. McQuarrie
in the adjoining constituency large quantities particularly of small fruits and I can corroborate everything the hon. gentleman said in that connection. Let me just mention one point in connection with eggs. Mind you, we are right there beside the border, and running through, but of -course not all in, my constituency for a distance of 2,000 miles, from Vancouver to San Diego, California, there is the Pacific highway, a paved road all the way. Every day, I was almost going to say every hour, big truckloads of produce grown in the United States come into our markets vi.a that road and the result is very hurtful indeed to our farmers. I have here an editorial from the same paper that I referred to a moment ago, the Vancouver Sun, dealing with the subject of eggs, and if the House will permit me, I will read it. It was published on the third of this month and it 6ays:
Failure of the Ottawa government to impose a reciprocal tariff on eggs entering Canada from the United States is having a depressing and, in some instances, an almost calamitous effect on the poultry industry of British Columbia. .
Both in point of quality and quantity this province has become one of the chief egg-producing centres of the North American continent.
According to official record of performance figures, the percentage of birds qualified in British Columbia as producers of 150 eggs and over, has increased from 21.2 in 1920, 39.3 in 1921, 47.8 in 1922 to 68.5 in 1923. Annual percentages for the rest of Canada are, 11.9 in 1920, 19.5 in 1921, 19.8 in 1922 and 30.1 in 1923.
British Columbia birds qualified as producers of 225 eggs and over, have increased from 2.2 in 1920 to 18.9 in 1923. The increase in this class for the rest of Canada has only been 1.5 in 1920 to 2.5 in 1923.
British Columbia, therefore, is Canada's chief poultry centre. Legislation in regard to the Canadian poultry business should be based on British Columbia records as a standard.
But instead of encouraging and nourishing the British Columbia poultry industry, existing Canadian tariff laws consistently throw business into the hands of American competitors.
The Eastern Canadian market is flooded at present with American eggs that gain entry to the country on the comparatively negligible tariff impost of 3 cents a dozen. Considering the difference in transportation costs, British Columbia producers cannot begin to compete in the Eastern market under such a handicap.
Moreover, the opportunity to recoup this loss in the New York market is obviated by the fact that Canadian egg exporters are faced with an 8-cent duty when they attempt to ship into the United States.
British Columbia poultrymen, therefore, are shut out of American markets by high American tariffs and shut out of Canadian markets by American competition fostered by low Canadian tariffs.
Until the Canadian Government sets up a reciprocal tariff, this fine healthy industry is doomed to a struggle against adverse circumstances, and the prosperity of Canada will be retarded.
Our neighbours to the south have a great advantage over us in that their season is two or three weeks earlier than ours in respect to all produce; that gives them the 23)
opportunity of getting the first market, and the first market is always the best. I submit seriously to the government that something ought to be done on this subject of tariff. At least they should consider doing something, but evidently they are not considering doing anything. If they wish to do right by the people of this country, if they have any interest in their welfare, it seems to me that they should consider what action should be taken in this respect. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) who said it appeared to him that in dealing with our friends on the other side of the line retaliation was the proper medicine.
I have no doubt that hon. members particularly to my left would be greatly disappointed if I did not mention the oriental question. There is just a chance, you know, that unless we say something the government will come to the conclusion that the oriental question is a dead issue. But it is not a dead issue by any means; the people of British Columbia are not going to let it die. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) knows what it is. I was sorry to see him leave the Department of Immigration. I do not know whether we shall have as good a friend in the present minister; he may be all right, but some of the statements he made in the House-in dealing with this subject, about the business we would lose and that kind of thing did not appeal to me at all. It is not a matter of business; it is a matter of the future of this country. If we do not get any business at all from Japan it does not make any difference to us. They have got to do the business anyway; they are buying these things from us because they think it pays them to do so. So that from what the present Minister of Immigration (Mr. Robb) has said on several occasions, it seems to me that he is making too much of that point. Let us forget that business question altogether and think about the matter from the point of view of nationality. As I say, the people of British Columbia are not allowing this oriental question to die; far from it. They are starting something, and the government should be in on it-an oriental survey of the whole Pacific coast, which has opened in the city of Vancouver under the direction of Dr. Robert E. Park of the University of Chicago. If the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Robb) were here I would ask him to pay particular attention to what I am about to read. This is from an article in the Vancouver Province of recent date:

The Address-Mr. McQuarrie
The survey in question will be both scientific and comprehensive. The oriental problem on this coast resembles the weather, of which Mark Twain complained "that though everyone had talked about it very little had been done." The aim of the survey is to replace opinion with facts. For this purpose a carefully directed study will be devoted for a year or more to every phase of the relationship of the oriental to this continent. The survey, in consequence, will not concern itself with any viewpoint or the support or advocacy of any school of thought on this subject.
It is also felt that so far as the oriental is concerned the Pacific slope of Canada and the United States is the racial frontier of America.
The institute offered to co-operate with the people of the coast on any plan for an exhaustive and scientific study of the matter. As a result regional councils have been formed at five points-Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco and Los Angeles, and groups at these points have undertaken to raise $30,000 for the work of the survey. The Institute of Social and Religious Research is contributing $25,000.
For this work, the co-operation of the University of Chicago had to be enlisted, as Dr. Park, who is one of the outstanding sociological and psychological experts of America, had to be released for this special work for a year at least. He is the author of a number of works on racial studies made among the negroes of the South, and the Poles, Hebrews and European immigrants. He adopts original and unstereotyped methods. "Get experience, not opinions", he says, "for human experiences are more valuable than statistics. Back of every opinion is an experience. These experiences may not justify opinions, but they explain them."
There will be some very eminent men on the executive. It is under the chairmanship of Dr. Wilbur, head of Leland Stanford University, and includes among its members Dr. Boggs, of the University of British Columbia, Professor Mackenzie of the University of Washington, Professor Sissons of Reed College, Portland, Dr. Bird, President of Occidental College, Los Angeles, and Mr. Mc-Caughey, for fifteen years Superintendent of Education in the Hawaiian Islands.
This survey is going to be most important, and I would suggest to the Minister of Immigration and to the government that the government should take some part in it. So far as I am concerned experience as well as opinion has convinced me that we shall eventually have to come to exclusion; nothing short of that will do. I understand that in the United States also they are contemplating exclusion against the Japanese as well as against the Chinese. During the debate of last session the Prime Minister called attention to the fact that no country in the world had exclusion against the Japanese. If exclusion becomes law in the United States, will the Prime Minister of this country think it is time to have exclusion here? If we are going to have exclusion eventually, now is the time to commence, before this country is filled up with these orientals.

I would also submit, Mr. Speaker, with all due deference, that the gentleman's agreement which was negotiated by your worthy self in Japan a number of years ago has outlived its usefulness. It may have been the best arrangement that could have been made at that time, but I submit that the time has come when we in this country should control our own immigration without reference to any foreign country whether friendly or unfriendly. I submit that the gentleman's agreement should be immediately cancelled. Let us make our own immigration laws.
There is just one other matter I shall touch on. The Japanese treaty should be abrogated, for this reason, that it prevents us from passing provincial legislation as to the holding of land and other matters in connection with property and civil rights, and the result is that the most valuable land in British Columbia in the cities and in the country is being acquired by the orientals. My good friends who have been out there know that to be the case. They know that the oriental is taking firm hold and deep root in British Columbia. We must stop it. We cannot stop it by provincial legislation so long as that treaty exists, and I say that if we are going to keep this a white man's country, which it should be, if we are going to keep it for our children and our children's children, now is the time to take action.
On motion of Mr. Boys, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 10.58 p.m.
Monday, March 17, 1924